This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

genwunners always cite the Pokemon for the quality decline. lets talk gameplay

#51TenzhiPosted 1/31/2013 11:21:38 PM
The bit about spreadsheets was hyperbolic rather than literal. It implies a certain amount of concern for numbers and/or balance, and I say it without disdain for such concern.
---
Often, when you try too hard to act superior, the opposite occurs.
#52roo10158Posted 1/31/2013 11:41:12 PM
what was the point of mentioning genwunners?


anyways, in terms of gameplay improvements, I think RS is the most innovative, from the infinitely better box system, to the running shoes, etc.

But I think the best one was HGSS for its touch screen start menu. Why they devolved back to the start menu being only in the screen for Gen V is beyond me (I think there was plenty of space to make the C Gear small and let it share the touch screen with the start menu).



as for the worst, obviously the clunkiest and most aged is Gen I because, like every series, the first one is the one where they didn't have something to build off of/refine.

Gen I had my favorite pokemon
Gen II had my favorite content
Gen III had the most innovation in terms of gameplay as well as my favorite environment and story
Gen IV had HGSS (my favorite games in the series)
Gen V had the best graphics and exploration and one of my favorite OST's
---
My systems: Genesis/32X, Saturn, Dreamcast, GG, SNES, N64, GCN, Wii, Wii U, Xbox360, PS1, PS2, PS3, GBC, DS Lite, DSi XL, 3DS, PS VITA
#53MoskidoPosted 2/1/2013 8:41:23 AM
Zephiroth X52 posted...
RomeoMinola posted...

Ignored what points? You simply stated that Pokemon reworked various elements of the game without lending example to which particularly. Unless you assumed I was a mind reader I regret to inform you; I cannot refute a point that has not been made.

But now that you have made it clear as to what you were referring to I find it laughable that you would list such trivial changes that do nothing to bring Pokemon's gameplay up to date (almost all of which, most RPGs get right the first time around) especially when I already addressed most of those as "goodies thrown in to appease blind fanboys" in a previous post. Sure those changes would have been more than welcome in 2000, but in case you and the rest of gamefreak fanboys haven't noticed; we're in 2013.

Also if insist on being a hypocrite yet again I must raise the point that you completely ignored my statement of Pokemon still being stuck in the days of grid based movement.

Also I won't argue that Skyrim's combat is not shallow given that I hold no particular love for that overrated game to be honest, but shallow or not it does not change the fact that its combat was more fun. The same holds true every one of the games you called shallow (including CoD). To be honest I've been of the opinion lately that calling other games "shallow" is just a defense mechanism that Gamefreak diehards use to excuse Pokemon's archaic combat. Still I find it hard to believe even Gamefreak fanboys could be so blind to not see a difference between the combat of current Pokemon games against Megaman Battle Network, which game out during the early 2000s.


I think I see the problem here. You are making a fallacy in assuming that A. Grid based anything is somehow antiquated and B. that Pokemon must follow some ill defined standard set but other games so loosely related to both Pokemon and each other that it doesn't really exist in the first place.

For the first assumption, well, let's put it this way: What is wrong with grid-based gameplay? Exactly nothing as I see it. It is relatively unimportant aspect of gameplay. It is also relatively easy to do. These to things are a perfect match that allow Gamefreak to focus on more important aspects of the games.

As for your second assumption, that will take a little more work. It is true that Pokemon Games have had a fairly static core gameplay experience. It can even be argued that it should have changed more over time than it has. What Game Freak have consistently done, however, is add a HUGE layer of depth to this system with every generation of games. Yes, the core Turn-Based battles with 4 moves to pick from is the same, but the subtly and choices that go into what to use when and how are completely different now then they were in Red and Blue. I would argue that this is more important. It allows Gamefreak to retain the core play experience of their games, something that is extremely successful and shockingly difficult to find nowadays from other places, all while changing around the details of that experience such that it is fresh and more deep than any similar experience before it.

In short, gamefreak does not waste resources on changing things that can not or should not be changed, but instead focus on delivering the experience with a whole new complexity applied on top.


Well...What he said basically. ^
---
FC Black 2: 2752 8681 7430
"Lebron James finally got a ring. Anything can happen now, I guess." - Myself.
#54Rogue MuttPosted 2/1/2013 9:11:12 AM
I loved Gen I as much as the next guy, but I'd never say something as foolish as it had the best gameplay/battle mechanics; for me, that peaked at Gen IV with the physical/special split following all of the improvements that II and III made.

Best Gen based on pokemon introduced is a-whole-other story, and it's one that will never see any kind of agreement within the fan community.

This "genwunner" thing just needs to die though.
---
We're here! We play Pokemon! Get used to it!
#55Nintendoboy77Posted 2/1/2013 9:21:18 AM
MindManipulator posted...
what game/gen did you like gameplay wise, controls, interface, stuff like that. which did it best or worst.

also I would love to see if someone would actually agrue that the touch screen made the gameplay worse. I think it was one of the main reasons why I got into Pokemon again at gen 4.


Gen 4 mosty sucked (besides HG/SS). I almost quit when I saw Gen 5 stuff. But then I actual played White version recently and it became my favorite pokemon game tied with the other 5 kanto games.

Anyway, I'm of course gonna go with Gen 5. No need to do local wireless battles at a pokemon center, just click the button at the bottom of the screen. Also, I'm glad the Pokemart is now in the Pokemon Center!
#56mustardpi314Posted 2/1/2013 9:28:53 AM
i used to be a "genwunner". then i played Emerald.
every single thing about this game was better than it was in Blue. the world, the battles, even the pokemon.
at first i was heartbroken. i couldn't believe i was enjoying this game. clearly Blue and Red were the only good pokemon games.
finally, it hit me.

Gen I sucked.
---
Heh heh... the wind... it is... blowing...
Official Ninetales of the Pokemon X and Y boards
#57PBustedPosted 2/1/2013 9:43:16 AM
Nintendoboy77 posted...
MindManipulator posted...
what game/gen did you like gameplay wise, controls, interface, stuff like that. which did it best or worst.

also I would love to see if someone would actually agrue that the touch screen made the gameplay worse. I think it was one of the main reasons why I got into Pokemon again at gen 4.


Gen 4 mosty sucked (besides HG/SS). I almost quit when I saw Gen 5 stuff. But then I actual played White version recently and it became my favorite pokemon game tied with the other 5 kanto games.

Anyway, I'm of course gonna go with Gen 5. No need to do local wireless battles at a pokemon center, just click the button at the bottom of the screen. Also, I'm glad the Pokemart is now in the Pokemon Center!


Gen I sucked balls, the absolute worst. FRLG is Gen III. Gen II ain't much better. HGSS is Gen IV
#58Nintendoboy77Posted 2/1/2013 12:14:24 PM
PBusted posted...
Gen I sucked balls,


Good for you. I'll keep thinking they're great games.