Pokemon History

lloyd_yayo

Nintendo 4life
Oct 16, 2006
782
3
ohio
Wii Online Code
7527 1826 6337 6464
Needless to say, there's a lot of hype around pokemon right now, and I'm glad to see the next installment come so early in the 3ds life cycle already.
A quick look at the progression of Pokemon? Yes i got that for you!

[video=youtube;dr9eN2jvnMI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dr9eN2jvnMI[/video]
 
Pokemon is one of the first three series I've ever played, and it's by far kept me the most interested. While I still like other games a lot, I just like Pokemon the most. I've explained before that its the large amount of cool creatures with many things to distinct them from one another. There's a lot of things to like, the only notable flaw I can think of is that the main series formula stays the same too much, resulting in games that are more similar to each other then they should be, along with a worse story. I still think Pokemon has more positives then negatives, and it's very doubtful that I'll ever lose interest.

The games just keep continuing to improve (although changing is an issue like I've said), and although I have mild concern for the future, I'm sure it'll be around for a long time.

Heil Pokemon!
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
Pokemon is one of the first three series I've ever played, and it's by far kept me the most interested. While I still like other games a lot, I just like Pokemon the most. I've explained before that its the large amount of cool creatures with many things to distinct them from one another. There's a lot of things to like, the only notable flaw I can think of is that the main series formula stays the same too much, resulting in games that are more similar to each other then they should be, along with a worse story. I still think Pokemon has more positives then negatives, and it's very doubtful that I'll ever lose interest.

The games just keep continuing to improve (although changing is an issue like I've said), and although I have mild concern for the future, I'm sure it'll be around for a long time.

Heil Pokemon!

Well said, and not many franchises can say that each installment has been a successful advancement . Though some people (i feel ignorantly) say the series has gone down since the original 151, you still can't deny as a RPG game its one of the best around.
 
you still can't deny as a RPG game its one of the best around.

Ehhhhh, no... Even the Eldest Fishing Guru can't praise Pokemon that much. 'Least, not 'less it's the first two generations of retro goodness.

"One of the best RPGs" would have a notably good story as well, somethin' Pogeymanz clearly lacked 'till recent years...
 
Ehhhhh, no... Even the Eldest Fishing Guru can't praise Pokemon that much. 'Least, not 'less it's the first two generations of retro goodness.

"One of the best RPGs" would have a notably good story as well, somethin' Pogeymanz clearly lacked 'till recent years...
Eh, it's a matter of opinion, and while I admit that Pokemon is indeed lacking in certain areas it's still one of my favorite RPG's.
 
No, it's not just a matter'a opinion. A game literally without plot falls quite short of bein' anywhere near the level of masterpiece. The best of games in general ain't complete without a good story, plain 'n simple.
 
No, it's not just a matter'a opinion. A game literally without plot falls quite short of bein' anywhere near the level of masterpiece. The best of games in general ain't complete without a good story, plain 'n simple.
I agree and disagree at the same time. I probably worded my last post badly. Personally Pokemon appeals to me to the point where it's one of my favorite RPG's ever, largely due to the large cast of 'playable' creatures. Contrary to what Assasin says, that's not "Quantity over quality", the games are of pretty high quality aside from story. The large amount of Pokemon and the many ways they can be customized make up (to an extent) for the below average story. So it's "Quantity over story", since the non-story quality is mostly fine.

It comes down to whether you prefer amount of playable characters (all of different species, which makes it more interesting) or story. I'm counting the lack of change in the main series formula as lack of good story. I think a lot of people would prefer story, while I personally like the huge amount of Pokemon.

It's true that I do prefer, for example, Xenoblade over every Pokemon game. This is due to the 3D gameplay and graphics, the huge world, awesome environments, great plot, and faster pace gameplay. Everything beat Pokemon except for the amount of 'playable characters', as I mentioned. Now let's look at FF6 (3 in America). I prefer Pokemon over that game because, even though FF6 had a much better plot, Pokemon was better in every other way in my opinion.

My point is that whether or not "it's one of the best RPGs around" is up to the opinion of the player. I personally think Pokemon is one of the best RPG's around, though it's true that I'm starting to get into 3D RPG's, which poses quite a threat to Pokemon due to better graphics and gameplay.

The best of games in general ain't complete without a good story, plain 'n simple.
Yeah, Pokemon's not as good as it could be, I agree with that part. But even as it is I like it more then most other games.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #9
The thing is, only handful of games, or RPG's for that matter have "masterpiece" plots, that make realistic sense. Xenogears, is a masterpiece, plot...are you kidding me??? zelda, considered and RPG, yet the plots to the timeline aren't even straight forward. Xenosaga, Chrono trigger, kingdom hearts, the list goes on.

If quality rpg = master piece plot, then 1) that's in the eye of the beholder, and 2) there truly are few good RPG's.

this according to splah king.
 
To be fair, I can't think of a non open world RPG that doesn't have a better plot then Pokemon. By open world, I mean like "do whatever you want lol" RPG with no real plot besides game backstory.
 
The thing is, only handful of games, or RPG's for that matter have "masterpiece" plots, that make realistic sense. Xenogears, is a masterpiece, plot...are you kidding me??? zelda, considered and RPG, yet the plots to the timeline aren't even straight forward. Xenosaga, Chrono trigger, kingdom hearts, the list goes on.If quality rpg = master piece plot, then 1) that's in the eye of the beholder, and 2) there truly are few good RPG's.this according to splah king.
Zelda isn't an RPG.
 
I agree and disagree at the same time. I probably worded my last post badly. Personally Pokemon appeals to me to the point where it's one of my favorite RPG's ever, largely due to the large cast of 'playable' creatures. Contrary to what Assasin says, that's not "Quantity over quality", the games are of pretty high quality aside from story. The large amount of Pokemon and the many ways they can be customized make up (to an extent) for the below average story. So it's "Quantity over story", since the non-story quality is mostly fine.

So by your logic, Skyrim is an absolutely fantastic game due to the sheer volume of quests? No, **** that noise. Your opinion is indeed as such and I can't contest that much. But I can damn-well argue with you usin' all that blatant bias to put the series on a winner's podium. I love Pokemon 'till death do us part, but do I put it anywhere near games like Red Dead Redemption or Shadow of the Colossus? Gods no. You can't have an excellent game when it's sacrificing; or in Pokemon's case, simply ignoring; one important quality and instead bolstering another. Quantity does not replace quality. Would you rather have another 500 Pokemon introduced in XY, or a truly fantastic, work of art plot with just Pokemon already introduced and only the new Pokes that've been revealed? If ya answer "the former", you can just skip replyin' to my post bro.

It comes down to whether you prefer amount of playable characters (all of different species, which makes it more interesting) or story. I'm counting the lack of change in the main series formula as lack of good story. I think a lot of people would prefer story, while I personally like the huge amount of Pokemon.

No, it don't. When it comes t' accurately reviewing a game, bias needs to be overlooked much as humanly possible. Otherwise you've got imbeciles reviewin' trash like Sonic '06 as a 10/10. An experience with a game is not the same as that game's true value. One pertains to the individual, the other is static and guaranteed. Just 'cause Pogeymanz is my favoritest series evar doesn't mean I'mma go on 'bout how it's the greatest; 'cause it's damn-well not. My greatest gaming experience (which isn't Pokemon, mind you) is terrible for someone else. Personal preferences are garbage in the topic of assessing a game's actual worth.

Now let's look at FF6 (3 in America). I prefer Pokemon over that game because, even though FF6 had a much better plot, Pokemon was better in every other way in my opinion.

Gotta get t' playin' FF6 just so I can disagree with ya more. :trollkarp:

My point is that whether or not "it's one of the best RPGs around" is up to the opinion of the player.

And my point is that your point, is utterly ****in' moot and should be shunned indefinitely. Absolute truth on such a matter obviously ain't obtainable since "art" and "masterpiece" are unique perceptions in their own right, but we can damn-well come to a more conclusive fact than opinions bein' thrown around haphazardly. Pokemon might be a bloody 10 for ya, but in reality it simply isn't deserving of said 10. Rate a game based on the quality, not the experience.

zelda, considered and RPG, yet the plots to the timeline aren't even straight forward. Chrono trigger, kingdom hearts, the list goes on.

Who the fuck voted these games for "a masterpiece story"? :lol:

If quality rpg = master piece plot, then 1) that's in the eye of the beholder, and 2) there truly are few good RPG's.

You've misunderstood my point. Unintentionally twisted my words a tad as well. I never said the story makes the RPG; a story can't really carry any typical game on it's own in fact, a game has t' be made in quite a unique way for gameplay and relevant qualities of a game t' be heavily ignored in favor for just plot. Heavy Rain's a good example (disregarding how good the game actually is, since I haven't played it) in that the gameplay is just quick time events 'n choices: the story is properly made the sole focus of the game.

I ain't talkin' 'bout great quality games either, I'm talkin' 'bout masterpieces. Works of video game art. No game is a masterpiece if it has any of it's major qualities so flawed as Pokemon's (lack of) plot. "One of the greatest" is essentially "one of the masterpieces", gaming has been 'round too long t' not have a top 10 list wherein games like Pokemon are nowhere near the top ('cept maybe RBY, but that's a very different; even contradictory; topic).
 
What I don't understand is how I'm supposed to rate a games quality while ignoring experience. Doesn't a good experience in a game stem from quality? The purpose of games is to create enjoyment, and if I really enjoy a game I consider it quality. If I was to ignore experience completely while rating a game, I should be able to rate it without having ever played it. Which isn't a way to rate anything.

but we can damn-well come to a more conclusive fact than opinions bein' thrown around haphazardly.
Opinions are thrown around haphazardly. Quality is something that we believe in as individual people, I don't understand how there could be, or should be, universally accepted quality for something as minor as a video game. I remember IGN giving PMD2 a low rating (bastards), does that mean it's a low quality game? To them, apparently. To me, not at all.

Quantity of characters doesn't replace story, but its a feature that makes the lack of story much less of a problem, at least for me.
Would you rather have another 500 Pokemon introduced in XY, or a truly fantastic, work of art plot with just Pokemon already introduced and only the new Pokes that've been revealed? If ya answer "the former", you can just skip replyin' to my post bro.
Eh? You know what my answer is already. Though I would like some new 'Mons.


.....I'll end up losing this argument, but I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from. ¬_¬
 
what I see
wall_of_junk.jpg
 
What I don't understand is how I'm supposed to rate a games quality while ignoring experience. Doesn't a good experience in a game stem from quality?

And that's the tough part. Seein' through your own bias is never an easy thing. Mainly because the actual experience of a game is nothin' but bias. People can enjoy a **** game if they're biased for it, their experience with it can be grand despite the fact said game is anythin' but. Likewise, anyone can have an experience notably better or worse than what the game would provide to those with more neutrally attuned preferences towards what the game provides. The key in rating a game properly is t' try and why you liked and dislike which parts of the game. Was it bias, or was it due to factors in the game itself?

If I was to ignore experience completely while rating a game, I should be able to rate it without having ever played it. Which isn't a way to rate anything.

No, that's a completely unfounded comparison. Seeing isn't believing: an experience with a game isn't necessarily the true value of a game. Likewise, what you see without actually playin' the game probably ain't a just summary of any game. Rating a game based off the bias-laden experience it provided, as well as judgin' a game ya haven't even played is poppycock. 'Specially the latter.

Opinions are thrown around haphazardly. Quality is something that we believe in as individual people, I don't understand how there could be, or should be, universally accepted quality for something as minor as a video game. I remember IGN giving PMD2 a low rating (bastards), does that mean it's a low quality game? To them, apparently. To me, not at all.

Because everythin' has relevance and set qualities even if it's all left down t' perception. Will tastes in video gaming grandeur ever change so drastically that popular opinion says that Superman 64 was a better superhero game than Arkham Assylum/City? That failure games like ET are wholly superior to a masterpiece like RDR(I'd barrel roll my way t' hell and back within my grave)? Quite obviously not. You're thinkin' far too large on the scale'a things. We're not talkin' 'bout philosophy or science, we're discussing a form of art: of expressing perception to the viewpoint of others. Perception is a valid part'a this argument; as is a sort of lack thereof needed to evaluate said art properly. Eliminating bias, in other words.

Quantity of characters doesn't replace story, but its a feature that makes the lack of story much less of a problem, at least for me.

For you. I downright hate the fact Pogeymanz has absolutely no plot, that these tried 'n true game mechanics and surprisingly captivating qualities within the monsters themselves are wasted in that their potential can't be fully reached as a masterpiece. The endless slew of 'mons, grand designs or not, will never make up for that. It's not a trade-off, it's not a compromise. For me, it's a disappointment.

I hope you can at least see where I'm coming from. ¬_¬

That I do.
 
Back
Top