I got my limited edition DS from the nintendo world store today! - Page 4

Demonic Lemonade · 08-30-2008, 12:03 AM

^^ Ironic, much?

DELICIOUS POISON · 08-30-2008, 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wariovswario

AI started with the whole "pokemon has no strategy" comment then it turned my topic into a piece of ****.

Now that's not fair, I started with the whole "Pokemon is a shallow franchise" and you wankers made it into an argument about strategy, which is relatively unimportant considering my opinion or the point that I wouldn't buy a Pokemon DS simply for complete inability to interest myself in it.

I've stimulated a lot more conversation in this topic than you'd intentionally managed. Considering your popularity, I'd be overjoyed that this one didn't turn into another "WvsW topic: dnr" thread.

You can certainly feel free to like Pokemon, ML. I'm not going to start acting like it's worth my or your money, though. If people don't like my opinions so much, they shouldn't bother arguing with me; we all know where that's going to end up... I'm just going to pile a whole nother heap of opinion on them.

***Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds*** · 08-30-2008, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tad Venture

It's their choice to be way into it, and if they want to view Pokemon as a strategy game, why not just let them, in stead of making them feel like douchebags for thinking what they do?

Okay. Dude.

One: Genres exist already. Genre classifications are defined by relevent factors in a game. You can't jam a game into a genre it doesn't belong in just because you really want to see it that way. In fact, there's something called Tactical Role Playing Games. Pokemon is not one of them. You need to see things in the grand scale- from actual strategic games to choosing which Pokemon can beat up the others. Are you going to try and tell me that choosing Generic Armour that ALSO deflects Magic Attacks over straight Generic Armour is a strategical concept, now? Because it just isn't. Basic principles, man. They exist in every RPG I've ever played.

Two: If you think I'm "making" anyone feel like "douchebags", you're taking way too much offence at... well, what? That Pokemon is just an RPG? It's hardly my fault if that's how you end up feeling about my posts. I'm not being mean, and I'm not calling anyone names, I'm not even insulting anyone's opinion- if YOU feel bad because Pokemon isn't a strategy game, and I'm willing to say so, then that's on your head. Not mine. I don't appreciate the attempt at guilt, particularly behind the guise of "just wanting to be fair".

Minister of Silly Walks · 08-30-2008, 10:16 AM

AI: Yeah, I know how opinionated you are. Fair enough.

SD: I get it now.

I think we've been talking past each other on this issue. You've been seeing "Strategy Game" and immediately thinking of the genre of strategy itself, and others have been seeing "Strategy Game" and thinking of a game that involves some strategy in order to compete in (and yes, you do have to be really into it, I'll also agree to that). Pokemon is the latter, not the former.

I didn't really mean to say that they viewed Pokemon as a "strategy game" as much as a "Strategic game." Slip of the tongue on my part. I know it's not, by genre, a strategy game, 'cause I've played strategy games, and I suck at them. I'm pretty sure that everyone else in the topic understands that Pokemon isn't a true strategy game like Fire Emblem or FFT or what have you. BUT, not being in that genre doesn't stop it from having some strategies in it, which is what I and (at least, I hope) everyone else is trying to get across.

I guess this misunderstanding is what made me really unsettled when you threw out the comment "real strategy game," 'cause I thought you were just trying to make people who EV train and stuff feel like tools.

So I'll admit that this was mostly my fault and involves a large lack of reading comprehension, but now do you get where I was coming from?

***Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds*** · 08-31-2008, 04:21 AM

Sure, man. I think you're exaggerating the importance of these "strategical" ideas in Pokemon (again, every RPG I've played has some strategical elements- choosing to level up one magic spell over another, choosing a faster weapon, rather than the slower but stronger one, etc), but sure.

The original point being that the Pokemon franchise isn't a strong one, because it's primary gameplay is a story-less level grinder. There's nothing about the characters for you to sympathise with or connect to, there's no driving force behind your actions. "Gotta catch 'em all", indeed. Pokemon succeeds because it can be played by very young children, as well as older people. Each game has been an exact clone of the first ones with a few things here and there changed. They can put out a new game with minimal effort and spending, but make a pile of money because there's still someone who wants the new one. *shrug* I still like the games well enough, but Nintedo would've been better off putting a stronger franchise onto their DS, in terms of appeal.

I miss having lots of special edition things. I think the last good one I saw was a gold GBA SP, with a Triforce on it. Years ago.

Minister of Silly Walks · 08-31-2008, 10:14 AM

Again, the strategical stuff in Pokemon mostly is shown when you're, as previously stated, "Way into it."

Actually, I think the fact that it can be played by young and old people is what makes Pokemon a strong franchise. I mean, yeah, the story line is minimal and the characters are almost non-existent, but if Nintendo keeps making a hell of a lot of money off of it, I don't see why it can't be called Strong. I think that a quick glance at all the Pokemon games/merchandise that's out there is a testament to how strong a franchise it is...I mean, I keep buying the stuff. I would totally buy the limited edition DS, if I had any money.

08-30-2008, 10:16 AM	#64
Minister of Silly Walks Moderator of Awesome Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Location, Location. Gender: Posts: 23,916 Thanks: 684 Thanked 749 Times in 423 Posts Points: 83,877.09 Bank: 208,780.78 Total Points: 292,657.87 Donate	AI: Yeah, I know how opinionated you are. Fair enough. SD: I get it now. I think we've been talking past each other on this issue. You've been seeing "Strategy Game" and immediately thinking of the genre of strategy itself, and others have been seeing "Strategy Game" and thinking of a game that involves some strategy in order to compete in (and yes, you do have to be really into it, I'll also agree to that). Pokemon is the latter, not the former. I didn't really mean to say that they viewed Pokemon as a "strategy game" as much as a "Strategic game." Slip of the tongue on my part. I know it's not, by genre, a strategy game, 'cause I've played strategy games, and I suck at them. I'm pretty sure that everyone else in the topic understands that Pokemon isn't a true strategy game like Fire Emblem or FFT or what have you. BUT, not being in that genre doesn't stop it from having some strategies in it, which is what I and (at least, I hope) everyone else is trying to get across. I guess this misunderstanding is what made me really unsettled when you threw out the comment "real strategy game," 'cause I thought you were just trying to make people who EV train and stuff feel like tools. So I'll admit that this was mostly my fault and involves a large lack of reading comprehension, but now do you get where I was coming from?

08-31-2008, 04:21 AM	#65
*Saria Dragon of the Rain Wilds* Admin "mine.. not yours. NO. MINE." Epic Ladynerd Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Forteresse de Valois Gender: Posts: 24,315 Thanks: 450 Thanked 703 Times in 455 Posts Points: 30,500.18 Bank: 392,666.43 Total Points: 423,166.62 Donate	Sure, man. I think you're exaggerating the importance of these "strategical" ideas in Pokemon (again, every RPG I've played has some strategical elements- choosing to level up one magic spell over another, choosing a faster weapon, rather than the slower but stronger one, etc), but sure. The original point being that the Pokemon franchise isn't a strong one, because it's primary gameplay is a story-less level grinder. There's nothing about the characters for you to sympathise with or connect to, there's no driving force behind your actions. "Gotta catch 'em all", indeed. Pokemon succeeds because it can be played by very young children, as well as older people. Each game has been an exact clone of the first ones with a few things here and there changed. They can put out a new game with minimal effort and spending, but make a pile of money because there's still someone who wants the new one. shrug I still like the games well enough, but Nintedo would've been better off putting a stronger franchise onto their DS, in terms of appeal. I miss having lots of special edition things. I think the last good one I saw was a gold GBA SP, with a Triforce on it. Years ago.

08-31-2008, 10:14 AM	#66
Minister of Silly Walks Moderator of Awesome Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Location, Location. Gender: Posts: 23,916 Thanks: 684 Thanked 749 Times in 423 Posts Points: 83,877.09 Bank: 208,780.78 Total Points: 292,657.87 Donate	Again, the strategical stuff in Pokemon mostly is shown when you're, as previously stated, "Way into it." Actually, I think the fact that it can be played by young and old people is what makes Pokemon a strong franchise. I mean, yeah, the story line is minimal and the characters are almost non-existent, but if Nintendo keeps making a hell of a lot of money off of it, I don't see why it can't be called Strong. I think that a quick glance at all the Pokemon games/merchandise that's out there is a testament to how strong a franchise it is...I mean, I keep buying the stuff. I would totally buy the limited edition DS, if I had any money.