"I'm going to start a fight by personally attacking somebody, but then back off because I can't support it."

Oh no. You wanted this. If you want to try and start claiming shit, you'd better be able to back it up.

There are currently five threads on the front page of Gaming that I've posted in. Those threads are, in (current) order, Pokemon X and Y, Xbox One, X-COM Enemy Unknown, Elder Scrolls Online, and Dragon Age Inquisition.

Let's go down the list, shall we?

This thread: I state that I will buy this game because it is an improvement over Black and White. Some of you disagree with my reasoning, but I don't particularly care, partly because my tastes aren't influenced by peer pressure and I'm entitled to my opinion, and partly because history has shown that we are split evenly on the issue. I'm not the only one who has made this complaint, nor will I be the last. Don't pretend it's Lord Raine trying to stir up shit. It's a legitimate complaint to make, and I'm not the only one to believe it, even if I am the only one ballsy enough to talk about it.

Xbox One. It's the Xbox One. Everyone is bitching about the Xbox One, because it's the motherfucking Xbox One. Microsoft was fully prepared to go Orwell/10 on our asses, and the only thing that forced them to back off from taking a blatant dump in our open mouths was the massive public shaming they received from literally everybody. Everyone was upset and openly mocked them, and rightly so.

X-COM Enemy Unknown. It's a fantastic game, even with the bugs, and most of the bugs have been fixed. I don't believe I complained once in the entire thread about anything besides possibly the bugs. I challenge you to find it, because I'm quite certain it doesn't exist.

Elder Scrolls Online. At first I didn't like it because the graphics made it look like WoW, and I wasn't alone in that, but I was willing to give it a chance because we didn't really know anything about it. Then they upgraded the graphics, and I was like "okay, I'm watching this for further development." Then they released the official trailers for the game, which simultaneously earned the rage of every serious Elder Scrolls fan and single-handedly invalidated the entirety of the Oblivion Crisis, pissing all over the lore in the process. I bashed it. I was not the only one who bashed it. I frequent many forums, and nearly all of the resident communities there have already decided that TESO is noncanon. I also put my money where my mouth was, and pulled a better idea clear out my ass, just to prove my point that Zenimax has no idea what the hell they're doing.

Dragon Age Inquisition. It's made by BioWare and EA, both of which have lied wildly in the past about the features of an upcoming game. They're talking a good game about Inquisition, and make it sound awesome. They also talked a good game about Mass Effect 3, with such wonderous claims as:

And of course, a gem upon the crown:

Along with many others I could list if I cared to take the time.

So they're liars. They lie lies to convince us to buy their games. The last three games they produced flopped horribly (Dragon Age 2, Mass Effect 3, The Old Republic), and were objectively bad in ways that I, again, won't waste time going into here. They weren't totally horrible. I loved a lot of the characters in DA2 as well as the dialogue choice structure, most of Mass Effect 3 was at least passably good, even if it wasn't amazing, and there was a good game hiding under TOR somewhere. But they were objectively bad, for a variety of reasons, because they failed some of the core things they needed to have.

So they've made three games in a row that were shit, and they've proven with Mass Effect 3 that they deserve every ounce of distrust and passive-aggressive malice we can throw at them. I, along with everyone else who cares to remember what happened the last three times, have every right to be distrustful, suspicious, and unwilling to take their word on anything. And I think it was a mistake to design the game to work on the 360 and the PS3, because that means they're forcing themselves to cut corners so the game can function on massively outdated platforms, which will hurt the quality of the end product, regardless of how good of a game it may or may not be on it's own merits.


So you've got one example of me holding an opinion that other people have about Pokemon, one example of me not willing to believe what BioWare says (and I can back that up with a mountain of hard evidence for why you shouldn't either), two counts of me pointing and laughing at something everyone else is pointing and laughing at (one of which I actually produced something that most people considered better), and one example of me liking a game and not only not really having anything to complain about, but being outright giddy at the DLC/New Version of the game they will be releasing soon.

Someone holding opinions that differ from your own isn't the same as them "complaining about everything," and I feel sad if that's really how you view the world.

I'd finish this by posting some kind of news so this is actually on topic, but there isn't any. We've already covered it. So have a bucket of baby sloths.

 

I'm not gonna even try to read the posts that created a post like that, but if people are criticizing Raine's choice to buy into Pokemon this generation, I'd like to ask yourself - which is more an RPG at this point? Dragon Age? Mass Effect? Or Pokemon?

I'm going to go with Pokemon. Yes, the game hasn't changed that much over the years - and people go up and down about that, but the basic gameplay doesn't need changing. It's a tactical roleplaying game - where you build a team of monsters to fight people with. Does it have its problems? Sure. But it at least has solid turn-based battle mechanics. And a lot of the things I've read from people who want Pokemon to change - they want it to be this other game. Totally disrespectful, as far as I'm concerned. Pokemon works. It's a formula, sure, but we hardly have any games that are even like old roleplaying games anymore. If you want something new and whatever, then you need to sell your idea to some developer, because it would be wrong for Nintendo to make a flag ship Pokemon title with totally redesigned gameplay. They would just fuck it up.

They're doing stuff to spice up the new generation of games, but nothing is really changing fundamentally. It's still the same game, sure, but if you like the basic turn-based gameplay... what are you complaining about again? I almost want to strawman here, about all the people who clamor for a Pokemon MMO, since it's a "great idea" on paper (really, it isn't)... but I won't.

The difference between Game Freak and BioWare? One company stuck to their guns. The other said, "Well, let's just make it a little more action-y... newer gamers like action! They don't have any petience..." Dragon Age Origins might be "good enough" by today's standards, but I honestly can't put it beside any of the classic roleplaying games without finding way more annoying flaws than they do.

 

You really, really should have read the posts before weighing in on them, because people one person was criticizing Raine's overly critical attitude toward pokemon this generation.

lol.

But really, could there be a less interesting derail?

 

I'm sorry, turn based =/= RPG, they just mostly happened to adopt that battle system in ages past.

And begging for true innovation isn't disrespectful.

They've virtually turned into an ActiVision/ Ubisoft, rereleasing content to cash in on a franchise. The only difference being that pokemon is much more appealing to children.

Consumers will have to vote with their wallets. Tragically, innovation just isn't as important as profit any more.

 

Well, if it makes you feel better, I'm gonna "vote" for every new 'main' Pokemon game until they stop making them.

 

Entirely your right

 

I see pokemon as having basic RPG concepts. Your character is your team of pokemon, with each "skill" being a single pokemon. With 600+ skills and dozens of ways to customize each skill... there isn't a computer RPG out there that has such a diverse character creation system.

It's turn based. You select skills and items to use in combat. It's all abstracted. There's no reticle to move around, no timing on attacks, et cetera

It's got RPG gameplay, even if it's missing some critical elements (like the ability to customize your avatar and to adopt a tone for your trainer, you know, to properly role play somebody). With a little tweaking, pokemon would be closer to a classic RPG than either Mass Effect or Dragon Age.

But yeah, having read the previous posts now, I don't really wanna argue, it was a dumb rant.

 

What i meant was turn based combat isn't necessary for an RPG. Pokemon is obv an RPG, as is DA and ME.

 

I think the point was Raine bitches too much about the most inane of things.

 

For mainstream companies, innovation rarely has been as or more important than profit.

When major companies innovated, it was to reach previously untapped markets (ie: wii) or because it was a natural evolution to an existing genre (ie: halo to FPS games, adding shield, weapon limit, etc).

Public companies like Nintendo, Square-Enix, Activision-Blizzard, etc are more or less legally obligated to make the most money possible for their shareholders, so slamming them for that - while potentially justified - seems weak.

 

Slamming? That's a bit harsh. I said it was tragic.

Besides, these companies aren't there to enrich our lives with great games, they're there to make money. It's consumers' fault for buying their products yearly despite, in my opinion, how average the games are (pokemon, assassin's creed, CoD etc).

As long as people keep throwing money at them, they'll keep making these games, and as long as they keep making the money they do, they'll continue to be seen as successes.

Tragic.

 

Yeah it's tragic and all, but if you produced a revolutionary game and could consistently come back to a market that loves your product, you wouldn't. If you found an awesome series that you love, changing it loses your money. If something isn't broke, don't fix it.

Hell, dota 2 is a good example. Something about raising the bar without moving it.

As for Pokemon, well allow me to be a bit of a hypocrite. The consumers they started with are grown. Some still play, but there is still a lot of money to be had that they aren't taking there.

Addendum: Nintendo should be doing this. WiiU needs this.

 

Although this is highly judgmental, I feel like people who want pokemon to change were the ones that grew up. Either that, or they never liked the game.

If you don't like Pokemon how it is - then you want a different game. What exactly can be "innovated" here? MegaEvolutions and the new way you can gain EVs as well as the online pokemon bank are all "innovating" on the game in a logical way, but if that's not enough, what exactly needs to change?

And innovation just doesn't appear - it takes a lot of research and development to produce, delaying the inevitable product. Nintendo needs Pokemon titles for the 3DS and WiiU to compete with mobile devices and the next generation.

 

So, i'm not allowed to cry 'innovate' because Nintendo needs sales?

First, Nintendo doesn't 'need' anything, they can release another ten Wii Us, each with progressively worse sales figures, and still be okay. That's how much money they have.

Second, me not liking (or being over it) Pokemon now means i didn't like it in the first place? Sigh, this statement is so ridiculous i don't even want to argue it.

How can they innovate? Really? Let me refresh your memory:

Pokemon Snap.
Pokemon Colosseum.

Let's not forget the one we've been waiting for our whole lives...

 

Oh I see the problem.

Not everybody is hipster/cultured/refined/inserthere like you.

 

So an inability to level the Pokemon or teach them new things and adding mini-games is innovation? I'll alert the presses.

 

The 3DS is doing fine, by the way. It's just the WiiU is tanking, that's all.

Also, innovation is fine and all, but there's something to be said for sticking to what you know and just refining it. Pokemon is a pretty perfect example of the second case, and I'd say it's pretty successful, considering how long it's gone on without the masses abandoning it.

 

God why are we even on this depressing derail? We ended this discussion like 15 pages ago with Menace and Rain deciding to agree to disagree, and everyone giving thumbs up out like halloween candy.

@Hug's post below me: I think if you have gaming "fatigue," you should try picking up another hobby. If you game so much that it's not enjoyable, you game too much.

 

Hipster? Wtf does that even mean? I feel like it's turned into an insult people throw around when they have nothing of value to add.

As for Colosseum, that game did more for me in getting into the battling metagame than any of the handheld versions did. Also, don't forget the mini-games!

The 3DS (handhelds) is now Nintendo's bread and butter, i also think that them picking up monster hunter from PSP was a massive coup in increasing popularity.

Also, from the way you're all replying, you seem to be labouring under the illusion that i think the pokemon main games are 'bad'. Couldn't be further from the truth. It's all about brand fatigue, the same way that guitar hero, assassin's creed and CoD fatigued me.

All of them are great games, but with the ever increasing number of quality indy titles, countless AAAs and new consoles, I've barely got time for what i have, let alone what's to come. I'm still working my way through Tales of Xillia, i play LoL almost daily, I've got about ten games on my vita I've yet to play, GTA5 and the shit tonne i bought during Steam sale - with all that, i just can't muster up the enthusiasm to play a prettier version of a game i've already played.

P. S. Snap is a perfect example of the quality of game gamefreak/ Nintendo can produce if they think outside the box. Announce a new one of those with all these new pokemon and I'd buy a Wii now.

 

I would probably kill someone for a newer pokemon snap game. Not only because the original pokemon snap game was fun, but because there are so many new (compared to the game as it was when snap came out) mechanics you could get rewards for taking a picture of. Pokemon didn't have gender, there were no 2 on 2 battles, there were very few pokemon who evolved through stones, baby pokemon (in general, and smaller versions of normal ones with a parent), a much more diverse poke-ecosystem, the HUUUGE berry system as it relates to pokemon (Oh my! That pokemon must have loved that berry! 100 points). There could be a portrait mode also, where you arrange photos with backgrounds and poses to show off various pokemon attributes, and a vintage mode for cameos with a few famous scenes/trainer combinations (like most of the pokemon movies. Can you imagine being able to take a picture of stone! Ash with the dual pikachu crying on him? How about Lance with his Dragonites? So many great characters from the anime alone, let alone the manga). We have so many diverse, named locations that it'd really be an amazing way to open up the pokemon world and add some body to the, like, 600 pokemon that exist. I remember being blown away when I saw the grimer/muk in the cave level, since I thought they were pollution pokemon.

There are really about a billion new options for them to use in a new snap game. Being a photographer for a gym battle, or a breeding/dancing contest, more adventure levels, etc. It boggles the mind why they never did it, at least to me.