Pokemon X and Y

[lazy villian]

I'm kind of mixed. I think the graphics are a massive improvement that could probably have been achieved a while ago, but the designs don't intice me all that much, in fact I've already forgotten their names and what they look like. It doesn't seem like they've actually shifted the game around a whole lot either, still the same similar looking character, the same types and the same duo of legendaries.

I dunno, the graphics are very pretty but I don't want to be drawn in by that alone, massively shift around the plot and gameplay and then we'll talk.

To quote xkcd:
"..throw off your commercial shackles, challenge us. Go out in a blaze of Dadaist glory. There is still time."

achived on what?
the ds?

why would shift aroundd game play like that

along character and story lines i agree with you, and why would pokemon die
it sells nintendo hand helds

i dont see your point exactly?

I suppose not no.

It was just a quotation from a webcomic, I was focusing on the 'commercial shackles' and 'dadaist glory' parts, I meant that Nintendo should stop sticking to the comfortable structure of the Pokemon games and do a massive overhaul of the plot and make it kind of like Pokemon Colosseum where you're a reformed thief, or make you a member of one of the evil organisations or something. Which is another thing that I always hear people wishing would happen.

i from that point i understand, they almost did it in black and white, those games were kinda f***ed up
id like to play with that more from the villain side though
id like for you to be able to customize your main character ( because im not a white/japanese guy and i am tired of playing as one ) and they asign different back stories at random, that would be interesting

how ever main character development and assigned main character i would like that one to be on a home console like collesseum

 

[lazy villian]

SNIP, I choose you!

Eeh, ok, fair point about the Geodude and Onyx and inanimate objects thing. Kind of justified because they, well, were rock types. And to be fair, Onyx is snake. Who happens to be made out of rocks. But most importantly, the majority of the first gen oozed of imagination, something the later generations lacked, especially the fifth. Blastoise is a perfect example, it's a huge turtle with ginormous water jets sticking out of its shoulders. How can you not love that!?

Gen V had a bag of trash with eyes slapped on.

The evolution chain of the starter turtles boils down to a small turtle becoming a big turtle right? In a game where crime syndicates can get disbanded by ten year old kids, I ain't gonna nitpick on the finer details, and truly, neither should you, you'll live a happier life
Who cares how a stupid red carp can turn into a humongous sea dragon, you've got a humongous hyper-beaming sea dragon!

mhm blastoise sucks,i didnt espect it not to be a big turtle the question is why does he not look like them so much , that its jarring . but anyways if you wanna go there
ghastly, is a ball of smoke with eyes
and and farfetched is a bird with a leek

ekens an arbok are just big purple snakes

they all have imagination, your nostalgia goggles are blinding you

 

[TheEvilCheese]

Gen V had a bag of trash with eyes slapped on.

Sorry, I partially agree with the sentiment of the post (Ice cream? TRUBBISH?) but it's not a great comparison. Generation one had a muddy puddle with eyes slapped on. It had a pokéball with eyes slapped on. It had a snake whose name is literally snake spelled backwards, which evolves and is still a snake with its name spelled backwards. It had a Seal called Seel etc.

The first gens felt more imaginative partly because they were the first. There was nothing of similar popularity to compare them to.

 

[ZehMadScientist]

SNIP fainted!

SNIP, come back!

I suppose both of you are right, a large part might be nostalgia speaking. They were the first Pokemon after all. IT WAS MY CHILDHOOD MAN!

However, when I first saw the Ice Cream one, Trubbish, Chandelure, Klinklang etc., I couldn't help but feel that the designs have gotten worse. Less inspired, somehow.

 

[Nantucket_v1legacy]

I think when Nintendo has to call their new Pokemon game: X & Y, you just know they've lost their colour chart or something.

I will not be investing in this game because every Pokemon game feels the same to me. I played Pokemon red, blue, yellow, gold, pearl and white and I saw very little difference between them. Granted graphics improved as the games progressed and Pokemon I did not know existed suddenly appeared after the originals.

Side note: I wonder if they could make a new Pokemon rap with all the Pokemon now?
It'd be longer than Don McLean's American Pie!

 

[Mr Dizazta]

OMG! I am super excited for the games. Hopefully there is a challenge mode available from the start of the game as opposed to what White 2 and Black 2 did.

 

[lazy villian]

SNIP fainted!

SNIP, come back!

I suppose both of you are right, a large part might be nostalgia speaking. They were the first Pokemon after all. IT WAS MY CHILDHOOD MAN!

However, when I first saw the Ice Cream one, Trubbish, Chandelure, Klinklang etc., I couldn't help but feel that the designs have gotten worse. Less inspired, somehow.

nostalgia?

like seriously, alot of pokemons designs are just copies of things
thats fine, just dont go around saying one gen is more imaginative than one because you were 10

i have seen catertpe

the real bug that looks like that

art reflcts life

 

[acillies45]

Alright...so if this was 10 years ago, this might have been cool...though at this point in the game, the graphics are too far behind, there's too many poke'mon and quite frankly, the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

thats not a point
if thats the case you should stop playing every video game that isnt a sequel ever because they didnt change the core mechanics

also its a hand held console thats actually good (sorry psp)
so of course the graphics wouldn't be onpar, with say a wiiu

your just being pessimistic

these arent points

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

I disagree. Generation two fixed the frankly game breaking Psychic type by introducing a type that was immune and a type that resisted it in Dark & Steel respectively.

Generation 4 divided moves into physical and special on a move by move basis rather than the previous system of it being done by type.

Not to mention that new moves and monsters always shake up the metagame in a big way, though I'll concede that classics like Salamanece will likely never lose their uses.

Also, don't fix what ain't broke, that's how you end up in the ditch FF has dug for itself.

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

 

[144_v1legacy]

I'm hopeful, and will likely get it.

Even so, I hope the map is way more expansive than previous generations, and I hope that there is a more involved post-game that will provide a not-so grind-feeling way to level up.

 

[NightmareExpress]

I am impressed to see them finally making a conventional Pokemon game using three dimensional graphics, something people have been dreaming about since the N64 days about what could be. Unfortunately, it seems like it will largely be the same (though it's true that the reveal trailer doesn't show much at all) and I'm going to imagine that the newly added Pokemon won't be the most good looking or imaginative (remember the ice-cream cone in B/W?).

With all that said, I wonder if any future titles will be using the alphabet.
Or perhaps even Greek symbols so that we may formulate things?
Pokemon Pi and Pokemon Sigma, anyone? Maybe Pokemon Alpha and Pokemon Omega?
The possibilities are out there.

Captcha:
ecks why zee

That is freakishly related to the topic.

 

[Snownine]

I am excited for the 3D world, but I hope there are better pokemon designs this generation. I warmed up to V but I still feel it was the weakest batch of designs thus far. Man, gen V flew by! I did not think we would see gen six until 2014. Although I suppose it makes sense, they want one of their flagship franchises to finally join the current system.

 

[chozo_hybrid]

I just wish they would make a full on Pokemon game for the Wii/WiiU. You can battle online and you'd be able to trade with people, make it a different kind of gorgeous and all sorts.

I don't do mobile gaming all that much because I prefer to game on my PC or consoles on a big TV. When I am out, I read or socialize, I try leave my gaming at home simply because I do enough of it as it is and I would love a Pokemon game for the home console, anyone else with me on that>

 

[verdant monkai]

I buy pretty much anything Pokemon so I will get this as well. I doubt there will be many new Pokemon apart from those starters and some extras 10-20 maybe? I for one would like another 150 of them.

but this is page 3 so no one cares anyway

 

[lazy villian]

Alright...so if this was 10 years ago, this might have been cool...though at this point in the game, the graphics are too far behind, there's too many poke'mon and quite frankly, the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

thats not a point
if thats the case you should stop playing every video game that isnt a sequel ever because they didnt change the core mechanics

also its a hand held console thats actually good (sorry psp)
so of course the graphics wouldn't be onpar, with say a wiiu

your just being pessimistic

these arent points

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

I disagree. Generation two fixed the frankly game breaking Psychic type by introducing a type that was immune and a type that resisted it in Dark & Steel respectively.

Generation 4 divided moves into physical and special on a move by move basis rather than the previous system of it being done by type.

Not to mention that new moves and monsters always shake up the metagame in a big way, though I'll concede that classics like Salamanece will likely never lose their uses.

Also, don't fix what ain't broke, that's how you end up in the ditch FF has dug for itself.

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

what your suggesting for pokemon battles would break the game, this is one of the rpgs where a turn based system is there for a reason

ff doesnt quite have that excuse, as we have seen in kingdom hearts AND THE STLL UNRELEASED VS13 that having an action rpg in a final fantasy setting , would not only work would be quite amazing.

pokemons mechanics work , as a turn based system espically in a multiplayer settings, there are rules and you have to follow them.

 

[acillies45]

Alright...so if this was 10 years ago, this might have been cool...though at this point in the game, the graphics are too far behind, there's too many poke'mon and quite frankly, the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

thats not a point
if thats the case you should stop playing every video game that isnt a sequel ever because they didnt change the core mechanics

also its a hand held console thats actually good (sorry psp)
so of course the graphics wouldn't be onpar, with say a wiiu

your just being pessimistic

these arent points

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

I disagree. Generation two fixed the frankly game breaking Psychic type by introducing a type that was immune and a type that resisted it in Dark & Steel respectively.

Generation 4 divided moves into physical and special on a move by move basis rather than the previous system of it being done by type.

Not to mention that new moves and monsters always shake up the metagame in a big way, though I'll concede that classics like Salamanece will likely never lose their uses.

Also, don't fix what ain't broke, that's how you end up in the ditch FF has dug for itself.

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

what your suggesting for pokemon battles would break the game, this is one of the rpgs where a turn based system is there for a reason

ff doesnt quite have that excuse, as we have seen in kingdom hearts AND THE STLL UNRELEASED VS13 that having an action rpg in a final fantasy setting , would not only work would be quite amazing.

pokemons mechanics work , as a turn based system espically in a multiplayer settings, there are rules and you have to follow them.

I disagree, it wouldn't break the game, it would change it considerably, but it would by no means 'break it' (Unless you consider change to be equivalent to breaking something). It would require a lot of revamping, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to convert the stats they have currently into things more like a fighting game's stats (I'm not suggesting turn it into a fighting game, but for instance: speed would be how fast you actually move instead of turn order and stuff like that) and make something different.

I just want a reason for why the developer can't change the rules. Sure, the current ones work, but they've been done to death. What's so bad about wanting a new system that is in keeping with the spirit of the old?

 

[theultimateend]

Are there actually any other new pokemon apart from the 3 starters and the two legendaries? Because that footage didn't show any other pokemon apart from them at all. Mind you, if they didn't introduce another 100 I'd be mighty pleased with that. I'm just wondering.

They always only show the starters first. But by rule of thumb: New Gen = New critters.

Edit: The footage also shows the new legendaries.

I see, well ... it should be alright I suppose. Can't say the water type starter looks appealing but I still feel optimistic about this one.

Frogbert will crush your team.

You just wait! >: (

 

[IamQ]

X and Y. Because that doesn't sound confusing at all.

Seriously, why X and Y? It sounds like placeholder names until they find out something good to call them.

 

[lazy villian]

Alright...so if this was 10 years ago, this might have been cool...though at this point in the game, the graphics are too far behind, there's too many poke'mon and quite frankly, the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

thats not a point
if thats the case you should stop playing every video game that isnt a sequel ever because they didnt change the core mechanics

also its a hand held console thats actually good (sorry psp)
so of course the graphics wouldn't be onpar, with say a wiiu

your just being pessimistic

these arent points

1st: I don't mind sequels having the same core mechanics. Obviously the second or even third game in the series probably won't change things much. But when you've had 6 - 8 (I don't know how many there are) games after the first, you think something significant could change after awhile (I'll get to what I mean under the next quote).

Graphics: That's fair. I don't care too much about graphics of the hand held, and they are not bad looking back on it. That was a bad point. I think by this point a full console game should've come out by now so I guess I was thinking that.

I'm not being a pessimist either (and technically they are points, how good they are may be shaky but the way I listed them categorizes them as 'points'). Going back to my first thought about there being so many sequels, if I'd have said this around 3 - 4 I would think myself a pessimist as that's not a whole lot to judge on. Honestly, by this point I think I have the right to be critical. They've had plenty of practice, I think they

the gameplay hasn't changed its core mechanics since Gen 1...so why shouldn't I go back to playing gold/silver?

I disagree. Generation two fixed the frankly game breaking Psychic type by introducing a type that was immune and a type that resisted it in Dark & Steel respectively.

Generation 4 divided moves into physical and special on a move by move basis rather than the previous system of it being done by type.

Not to mention that new moves and monsters always shake up the metagame in a big way, though I'll concede that classics like Salamanece will likely never lose their uses.

Also, don't fix what ain't broke, that's how you end up in the ditch FF has dug for itself.

When I say 'core mechanics' I think I may have been unclear. Yes they've changed parts of the system and that's good, but I guess I just have a problem with how it is still turn-based fighting (something I have been disliking for awhile). It really is a personal thing (though I know there are at least some others who agree) but I think they could do more with the franchise in terms of the battling aspect (my main concern although I've come up with other ideas). Poke'mon battles are supposed to be exciting aren't they? To me the turn based just turns repetitive and boring.

As with the 'don't fix what ain't broke' I would agree...but to an extent. I think some of the best games out there are the ones that take leaps to try things that are new and different. Sure you may get a flop, but aren't some of the best titles the ones that experimented with new systems. Ex: Look at Shadow of the Colossus's concept: Bosses that are dungeons and no small enemies to fight through? When I first heard that I was a little skeptical as to how it would play out. Now it is in my top 5 games.

I don't mean to sound pessimistic and I probably am overly upset with them coming out with the new generations (although compared to the old ones, these just look rushed, but hey, that's my opinion again), but I love poke'mon. I have since I was a kid. I think the franchise could do more than it is now if they took their time with it, redid the system a bit, and put it on console. I've had an idea of third person fights where you control the pokemon (and many other aspects I won't go into). I think that could be fun.

Anyways, this all is opinionated and you can disagree. I'm just voicing myself haha.

what your suggesting for pokemon battles would break the game, this is one of the rpgs where a turn based system is there for a reason

ff doesnt quite have that excuse, as we have seen in kingdom hearts AND THE STLL UNRELEASED VS13 that having an action rpg in a final fantasy setting , would not only work would be quite amazing.

pokemons mechanics work , as a turn based system espically in a multiplayer settings, there are rules and you have to follow them.

I disagree, it wouldn't break the game, it would change it considerably, but it would by no means 'break it' (Unless you consider change to be equivalent to breaking something). It would require a lot of revamping, but I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to convert the stats they have currently into things more like a fighting game's stats (I'm not suggesting turn it into a fighting game, but for instance: speed would be how fast you actually move instead of turn order and stuff like that) and make something different.

I just want a reason for why the developer can't change the rules. Sure, the current ones work, but they've been done to death. What's so bad about wanting a new system that is in keeping with the spirit of the old?

uh its an rpg rpgs have pretty much been the same for, well forever. you go thre for presentation and strategy
it would break the game, end of story

if they wanted to do a s pokemon fight spin off thing fine, but i play pokemon to play and rpg, you gotta realize when what you want doesn't gel whit what everyone wants

 

[dombo813]

well.. this looks awesome, but i heard somewhere that theyr only making 20 new pokemon, and already 11 are taken up by starters/legendaries...

on the starters, the grass and water could have been a LOT better made, and theyr sprites look very 2D. also, from their move apearances it also looks like their type and attack combinations are nothing new either, and im not optimistic about their evolutions, because nintendo have limited themselves by making the first stages too basic. the grass type now has to revolve around an originally limited species (beaver), water has to evolve into something frog-like, so it would have worked better starting it as a tadpole.

however, the fire type looks promising, as a dual fire/psychic pokemon that is easy to obtain and may evolve to have higher stats will be endlessly useful, and the sprite looks more 3D in general, although this could be biased, as i thought the same thing upon seeing the sprites for victini in comparison to other gen 5 pokemon. also, the fox has multiple types and i would much rather see a humanoid fox than a giant beaver or frogman. as nintendo tries to base their real-creature based pokemon as much as possible on their real-world counterparts, i can rightfully expect to see fennikin to be fast and agile, btu the grass should be about building, so probably increasing stats, most likely defense or health. the frog is a strange land and water creature, and its appearance is naturally repelling, so i expect that to have a combination of lowering opponent's stats with poison and status moves.

im also not pleased about the idea of the legendaries and in consequence, games, to be based on genders, as i find differentiating the genders in such a way to be sexist, as if dictating that your pokemon choice has to be based on your gender. however, i find this unlikely to be the case, because the stag and bird are both related to in poetry as symbols of grace and beauty, as are their respective colours.

 

[AlbertoDeSanta]

Watched it when it was live. I loved it. The starters are fine in my opinion. I'm just glad they're FINALLY Going onto 3ds. Because it should have happened when Black 2 and White 2 were released.