The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
http://special.reserve.co.uk/news/story.php?id=2634
GC Pokemon RPG! GC Pokemon RPG!
*excited*
And online too, will be useful for trading and stuff.
*dances*
GC Pokemon RPG! GC Pokemon RPG!
*excited*
And online too, will be useful for trading and stuff.
*dances*
Page:
i always thought this would happen. hopefully it will be based around the old quest in kanto rather than all the new rubbish in johto and other crappy places from the new games.
See? I was right.
Well, er, at least you realise this now. I guess that's something.
:)
Well, er, at least you realise this now. I guess that's something.
:)
Well looks like i got this one wrong. I apologise to anyone who spent time trying to stress to me how much of a dumba*s i was being.
Lipe wrote:
> They don't even sell the cards anymore do they?
yes.
> They don't even sell the cards anymore do they?
yes.
Sibs wrote:
> Pokemon has the majority of these things, the only difference is the
> way in which they are presented... Pokemon has a main story, not
> particularly great, but as I said before, same can be said of vast
> numbers of RPGs... There is no magic or MP, but your character/weapon
> building is there. The whole point of catching Pokemon is each one is
> a strategic weapon, with strengths and weaknesses. You have to make
> decisions which Pokemon to keep in your team and train up because it
> will greatly effect the outcome of battles. As Pokemon are trained
> they learn new moves and become stronger/faster/better defence/etc. so
> yes there is character building, and this is essentially weapon
> building and magic building too as your Pokemon and their moves are
> pretty much your weapons, and their moves are not limited to simple
> attacks but cover a whole range of abilities from draining enemies
> health to putting them to sleep which in a game such as Final Fantasy
> would be achieved through magic...
>
> Pokemon (at least not Red) didn't have a vast array of sub-plots
> (though there were a few) and it didn't really have mini-games, but it
> was a GameBoy game! When converted to GameCube it could easily have
> numerous sub-games, and I'm guessing it will, as many sub games were
> used for Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 on N64... So as far as I can see the
> only argument is that previous Pokemon games don't have mini-games
> (which is by no means essential for a real RPG... see any mini games
> in Baldurs Gate series...?) and that the combat system isn't quite as
> deep as, say FF7 (though in my opinion it's a lot better than FF8,
> even if it's not as complex...)
>
> Anyway... Yes, the Pokemon games are presented in a different way to
> most RPGs, but that doesn't make them any less RPGs or even
> 'RPG-lite's
Bingo! Sibs has hit the nail on the fundamental head, most RPG's feature multiple characters each character has his or her own ability. You must train and improve/learn this abilities throughout the game.
What Sibs failed to mention are the multiple plot lines, the winning of the Pokemon league, playing the coin machines, the Pokemon safari and the destruction of Team Rocket. In Gold and Silver you have the training of Togepi and the hunting down of the legendary Pokemon has always been a sub plot in all the Pokemon games. Of course in Gold and Silver the Unknown mystery was a completley unneccesary but huge and intriguing aspect to the entire Pokemon story.
How you cannot class Pokemon as a full RPG I don't know. It is quite possible that because of some colurful graphics (traditional of Nintendo games) and some kids cartoon that you believe the game to have a younger demographic and therefore not consisting the complexity of RPG's. That is where you are wrong, granted like all Nintendo games if you don't possess the adult mentality you are likely to train the normal set of Pokemon, get to the end simply, and complete the game. If you are more mature then you may capture every pokemon, manage to understand the best Pokemon, what moves work best on who, what combination creates the most victory. That even if you train up to level 100 the statistic points CAN still rise...
Easy to play... hard to master. A full RPG in its own right... just aimed at everyone.
And to the dweeb who criticised Pokemon because the amount of monsters keep rising then you're wrong. Pokemon red and blue consisted of 150, Gold and Silver 250 and Ruby and Sapphire 200.
> Pokemon has the majority of these things, the only difference is the
> way in which they are presented... Pokemon has a main story, not
> particularly great, but as I said before, same can be said of vast
> numbers of RPGs... There is no magic or MP, but your character/weapon
> building is there. The whole point of catching Pokemon is each one is
> a strategic weapon, with strengths and weaknesses. You have to make
> decisions which Pokemon to keep in your team and train up because it
> will greatly effect the outcome of battles. As Pokemon are trained
> they learn new moves and become stronger/faster/better defence/etc. so
> yes there is character building, and this is essentially weapon
> building and magic building too as your Pokemon and their moves are
> pretty much your weapons, and their moves are not limited to simple
> attacks but cover a whole range of abilities from draining enemies
> health to putting them to sleep which in a game such as Final Fantasy
> would be achieved through magic...
>
> Pokemon (at least not Red) didn't have a vast array of sub-plots
> (though there were a few) and it didn't really have mini-games, but it
> was a GameBoy game! When converted to GameCube it could easily have
> numerous sub-games, and I'm guessing it will, as many sub games were
> used for Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 on N64... So as far as I can see the
> only argument is that previous Pokemon games don't have mini-games
> (which is by no means essential for a real RPG... see any mini games
> in Baldurs Gate series...?) and that the combat system isn't quite as
> deep as, say FF7 (though in my opinion it's a lot better than FF8,
> even if it's not as complex...)
>
> Anyway... Yes, the Pokemon games are presented in a different way to
> most RPGs, but that doesn't make them any less RPGs or even
> 'RPG-lite's
Bingo! Sibs has hit the nail on the fundamental head, most RPG's feature multiple characters each character has his or her own ability. You must train and improve/learn this abilities throughout the game.
What Sibs failed to mention are the multiple plot lines, the winning of the Pokemon league, playing the coin machines, the Pokemon safari and the destruction of Team Rocket. In Gold and Silver you have the training of Togepi and the hunting down of the legendary Pokemon has always been a sub plot in all the Pokemon games. Of course in Gold and Silver the Unknown mystery was a completley unneccesary but huge and intriguing aspect to the entire Pokemon story.
How you cannot class Pokemon as a full RPG I don't know. It is quite possible that because of some colurful graphics (traditional of Nintendo games) and some kids cartoon that you believe the game to have a younger demographic and therefore not consisting the complexity of RPG's. That is where you are wrong, granted like all Nintendo games if you don't possess the adult mentality you are likely to train the normal set of Pokemon, get to the end simply, and complete the game. If you are more mature then you may capture every pokemon, manage to understand the best Pokemon, what moves work best on who, what combination creates the most victory. That even if you train up to level 100 the statistic points CAN still rise...
Easy to play... hard to master. A full RPG in its own right... just aimed at everyone.
And to the dweeb who criticised Pokemon because the amount of monsters keep rising then you're wrong. Pokemon red and blue consisted of 150, Gold and Silver 250 and Ruby and Sapphire 200.
They don't even sell the cards anymore do they?
Pokemon games are class. The cartoons, toys, cards and pretty much the rest of the franchise is for babies.
It's on Cube-Europe
Tiltawhirl wrote:
> Once again Special Reserve seem to have news that every other site on
> the internet knows nothing about.
>
> There's rumours about the game, but nothing has been confirmed.
SR do seem to do that!
> Once again Special Reserve seem to have news that every other site on
> the internet knows nothing about.
>
> There's rumours about the game, but nothing has been confirmed.
SR do seem to do that!
Alter Ego wrote:
Take FF for example, you
> have your main story, your sub-stories, your sports, your weapon
> building, your magic building, your character building, your
> aeon/summon whatever capturing/colecting/learning, your aeon/summon
> building, your chocobo racing, blitzball (lets just say lots and lots
> of mini games), dozens of side quests and so forth.
:S
Pokemon has the majority of these things, the only difference is the way in which they are presented... Pokemon has a main story, not particularly great, but as I said before, same can be said of vast numbers of RPGs... There is no magic or MP, but your character/weapon building is there. The whole point of catching Pokemon is each one is a strategic weapon, with strengths and weaknesses. You have to make decisions which Pokemon to keep in your team and train up because it will greatly effect the outcome of battles. As Pokemon are trained they learn new moves and become stronger/faster/better defence/etc. so yes there is character building, and this is essentially weapon building and magic building too as your Pokemon and their moves are pretty much your weapons, and their moves are not limited to simple attacks but cover a whole range of abilities from draining enemies health to putting them to sleep which in a game such as Final Fantasy would be achieved through magic...
Pokemon (at least not Red) didn't have a vast array of sub-plots (though there were a few) and it didn't really have mini-games, but it was a GameBoy game! When converted to GameCube it could easily have numerous sub-games, and I'm guessing it will, as many sub games were used for Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 on N64... So as far as I can see the only argument is that previous Pokemon games don't have mini-games (which is by no means essential for a real RPG... see any mini games in Baldurs Gate series...?) and that the combat system isn't quite as deep as, say FF7 (though in my opinion it's a lot better than FF8, even if it's not as complex...)
Anyway... Yes, the Pokemon games are presented in a different way to most RPGs, but that doesn't make them any less RPGs or even 'RPG-lite's
Take FF for example, you
> have your main story, your sub-stories, your sports, your weapon
> building, your magic building, your character building, your
> aeon/summon whatever capturing/colecting/learning, your aeon/summon
> building, your chocobo racing, blitzball (lets just say lots and lots
> of mini games), dozens of side quests and so forth.
:S
Pokemon has the majority of these things, the only difference is the way in which they are presented... Pokemon has a main story, not particularly great, but as I said before, same can be said of vast numbers of RPGs... There is no magic or MP, but your character/weapon building is there. The whole point of catching Pokemon is each one is a strategic weapon, with strengths and weaknesses. You have to make decisions which Pokemon to keep in your team and train up because it will greatly effect the outcome of battles. As Pokemon are trained they learn new moves and become stronger/faster/better defence/etc. so yes there is character building, and this is essentially weapon building and magic building too as your Pokemon and their moves are pretty much your weapons, and their moves are not limited to simple attacks but cover a whole range of abilities from draining enemies health to putting them to sleep which in a game such as Final Fantasy would be achieved through magic...
Pokemon (at least not Red) didn't have a vast array of sub-plots (though there were a few) and it didn't really have mini-games, but it was a GameBoy game! When converted to GameCube it could easily have numerous sub-games, and I'm guessing it will, as many sub games were used for Pokemon Stadium 1 and 2 on N64... So as far as I can see the only argument is that previous Pokemon games don't have mini-games (which is by no means essential for a real RPG... see any mini games in Baldurs Gate series...?) and that the combat system isn't quite as deep as, say FF7 (though in my opinion it's a lot better than FF8, even if it's not as complex...)
Anyway... Yes, the Pokemon games are presented in a different way to most RPGs, but that doesn't make them any less RPGs or even 'RPG-lite's
Page: