Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#21 - Hightower (10/10/2013) [-]
Pokemon has basically been the same game since the first one. Nothing but minor graphical upgrades and changing the pokemon themselves. I mean, the biggest advance in the series is being able to walk at an angle...
User avatar #280 to #21 - Johnsfer (10/11/2013) [-]
No, you are so wrong it hurts me.
#316 to #280 - Hightower (10/11/2013) [-]
What different gameplay mechanic does the new game offer that wasn't in the first one released in 1998?
User avatar #318 to #316 - Johnsfer (10/11/2013) [-]
EV Training
Double/Triple Battles
1v5 pokemon battles
That's just a few
To say that Pokemon Red and Blue are the same game as X and Y is slightly correct, in that you are still catching pokemon, you are still trying to get to the elite four, but there is so much on the side to do now that cannot be done in the first games. To say that is to say that the very first CoD is basically the same as BO2, only graphics change and changes in the guns themselves and thats it.
#320 to #318 - Hightower (10/11/2013) [-]
So in 15 years with 18 sequels there have 4 minor changes to gameplay (weather is not a gameplay mechanic) and you disagree with me why?
User avatar #322 to #320 - Johnsfer (10/11/2013) [-]
I never said those are the only changes ******* , quit sticking to this retarded argument without even looking at the other side.
I can see that yes there are obviously going to be similar in gameplay throughout all the games, but that doesn't mean that the only changes are sprites, stats and graphics.
#319 to #318 - Hightower (10/11/2013) [-]
You do realize you are arguing against what the game creators have said, don't you? Junichi Masuda, the director of Game Freak compared Pokemon to the annual sports games and says it hasn't changed much in 15 years. When the games parent company admits it's the same game over and over with, like I said in my post, nothing but minor changes, your argument loses some traction.
User avatar #321 to #319 - Johnsfer (10/11/2013) [-]
And yet I have just finished posting many different things that prove that the game has been changing, no matter what they say, it's not an annual game, while the core game stays similar, there are so many changes I can't even name them all.
Even the core game has changed like I said, Shiny Pokemon, Weather is a gameplay mechanic, if you actually played pokemon you would know, multiple pokemon per battle, sky battles, megaevolutions and even actual plots.
#231 to #21 - amonomous (10/11/2013) [-]
Not really.
#209 to #21 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/10/2013) [-]
have u ppl played more then 1 pokemon game???? odd how ppl say pokemon doesnt change anything.
changes: characters, towns, maps if those dont matter then dream world(online), battle tower,battle train, NEW pokemon(and dont say gen 1 is the best,geodude was a rock with arms)
I play pokemon to catch/battle/train pokemon. I play COD to shoot ppl. why would they change play style?
#317 to #209 - Hightower (10/11/2013) [-]
The gameplay has not changed in 15 years man. Nothing you said refutes that. Aside from visual changes , the game is the same. Sorry if that offends you in some way, but it's true.
User avatar #146 to #21 - doctorhue (10/10/2013) [-]
When you can sit on benches in your favorite games, then talk to me.
#206 to #146 - blokrokker (10/10/2013) [-]

But seriously, Altair has some monster ******* hands, goddamn.
User avatar #75 to #21 - xdeathspawnx (10/10/2013) [-]
do you know how long it takes to design 150+ pokemon that all have to be balanced takes? That's a pretty big update in my book. At least they don't just recycle the first 151 pokemon over and over again. Its not like every madden game has different players, the majority of them are the same from the year before.
User avatar #30 to #21 - chitownbrownie (10/10/2013) [-]
I liked the ones that came out for gamecube, those were awesome
User avatar #29 to #21 - admiralen (10/10/2013) [-]
except thats the point of sequels, you get more of what you liked last time, they give you new maps, new pokemon, new battles and new graphics etc.
User avatar #26 to #21 - subtard (10/10/2013) [-]
While every shooter is exactly the same but with different looking guns
And every sports game is exactly the same but with different names on the back of jerseys.
#276 to #26 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/11/2013) [-]
actually madden has been declining lately, but this year has fixed so much that it is prolly the best madden i have ever played, i no its still the same concept and stuff but the little things make a big difference, i love pokemon to but a good sports game that isnt easy for one person to dominate in is a lot of fun
#208 to #26 - ghettoham (10/10/2013) [-]
Are you kidding me? So you're saying shooters haven't changed since Quake, Doom and golden eye yeah?   
Because half-life didn't basically invent scripting did it? And Halo didn't begin the whole "two weapon and regenerating health" thing either right? Its just always been that way. And CoD4 didn't show everyone just how good scripting can get right?    
Yes, you are correct in saying that in recent times, the shooter genre hasn't really advanced too much. But you look back at when the first pokemon games came out and the shooters at the same time, then look at modern shooters and tell me that things haven't changed.   
Pokemon has not had a major change in gameplay style or direction, ever. It hasn't evolved. Maybe because it doesn't need to, but you can't hate the people who say they wanted something more this time.   
And no idea about sports games, don't play them.
Are you kidding me? So you're saying shooters haven't changed since Quake, Doom and golden eye yeah?

Because half-life didn't basically invent scripting did it? And Halo didn't begin the whole "two weapon and regenerating health" thing either right? Its just always been that way. And CoD4 didn't show everyone just how good scripting can get right?

Yes, you are correct in saying that in recent times, the shooter genre hasn't really advanced too much. But you look back at when the first pokemon games came out and the shooters at the same time, then look at modern shooters and tell me that things haven't changed.

Pokemon has not had a major change in gameplay style or direction, ever. It hasn't evolved. Maybe because it doesn't need to, but you can't hate the people who say they wanted something more this time.

And no idea about sports games, don't play them.
#196 to #26 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/10/2013) [-]
Spoken like someone who has never actually played a shooter before. Please go watch some Halo and then go watch some CoD or some BF and tell me how it's guns painted different. They all play differently, have a lot of different features, balance, tactics and all present different oppurtunities. Please actually put some hours into various shooters before you say they're all the same. I know it's 'cool' to hate on shooters because god forbid anyone like anything popular on the internet, but when you espouse these tired opinions you sound really stupid to anyone who has actually played a shooter before.
#169 to #26 - prominant (10/10/2013) [-]
That's not actually true about sports games but I see your point
#311 to #169 - xxxsonic fanxxx (10/11/2013) [-]
Remember everyone here is fat and doesn't like sports.
User avatar #153 to #26 - guidedhand (10/10/2013) [-]
I just wanna put it out there that i think FPS games almost have 'speeds' associated with them. Ie COD is a very fast almost twitch game, while Halo is a little slower (you dont just rush spray and die, it takes skill to kill someone), Battlefield is a little slower again and ARMA games are about as slow as you can get
User avatar #65 to #26 - thekinganon (10/10/2013) [-]
The same little updates pokemon has is the same ones sports games have. I'm saying this as a lover of pokemon and football.
#28 to #26 - Hightower (10/10/2013) [-]
So Left 4 Dead and Bionic Commando are the same game with just different guns? No. The mechanics of gameplay vary greatly within the FPS genre. While I will agree that some games are just a rehash of the last game, Call of Warfare: Modern Duty Battlefield Ops is a good example, there are massive differences within the genre. Sports games are all basically a re-release of last years game with new people, I'll give you that.
Even within the same series games can have massive differences between titles. Morrowind and Skyrim are not the same game, despite being similar in a lot of ways, and belonging to the same series. Look at the differences in simple games like Super Mario. Just between the two most recent console titles there are massive differences in style and gameplay mechanics. If they did like Pokemon the New Super Mario Brothers would be the way all SMB games are, but we also have games like the Galaxy series.
St it IS possible to make sequels that vary from title to title all while maintaining the series structure and integrity.
#27 to #26 - frolite (10/10/2013) [-]
He's right tho. Pokemon games haven't changed much at all since 98 its been pretty much the same thing just adding a new map, new pokemon, better graphics. Call of Duty and most other fps franchines are guilty of the same thing but because we were raised around pokemon it's ok for them to do it but god forbid another franchise decides to follow that blueprint. I loved pokemon i really did Dragonite is still my favorite since Lance mopped the floor with me with his back in Red version. And I'm itching to get back into it might buy me a DS just for pokemon X. But we all know what's to expect it's been the same dam thing since 98.
#197 to #27 - jinkazama (10/10/2013) [-]
Pokemon X is to pokemon red what borderlands is to timesplitters. Using the same basic combat doesn't make it the same game. Pokemon has changed massively in the competitive scene and goes very deep as far as strategy is concerned.

Plus you know, double battles, triple batles, rotation battles, sky battles, horde battles, pokemon contests, pokemon movie studio etc...the list goes on.

Pokemon has changed massively. It's still a party based turn based rpg. And if you don't like that then fine, but saying it hasn't changed is just ignorant. If you want an entirely new core mechanic then go play a spin off. There are plenty of good ones like mystery dungeon and ranger which are nothing like the main series.
#245 to #197 - frolite (10/11/2013) [-]
So it took 20 years to make any real changes into the game franchise? Not saying i don't like it i loved pokemon growing up. I'm not looking for something different im just saying that you guys demonize other franchises because of its repetitiveness and almost no change from the previous and pokemon has done this but nostalgia makes you guys ignore it and say that it's changed SO much when it really hasn't. Double battles? Triple battles? really? Thats some innovative stuff right there.
#324 to #245 - jinkazama (10/12/2013) [-]
Gen two: Additional types along with splitting special into special atk and def. Also two regions and time based events.

Gen 3: Double battles. More multiplayer features such as secret bases. Attacks split into physical and special based on their type. Addition of abilities which have massively changed the entire game. Contests added. IVs and EVs massively overhauled (that was the reason for no gen 2 -> gen 3 trading)

Gen 4: Specific moves split into physical and special. No longer type based. Addition of online battling and trading. GTS added. Multiplayer content in the form of the underground. Addition of other things such as poffin making. Contests overhauled.

Gen 5: Much more deep plot. Triple battles. Rotation battles. Memory link in B&W2. Addition of medals (basically achievements). Addition of C gear. Addition of dream world. Addition of global link. Randomized online battles added (friend code not needed). Wifi used for events so they were no longer unavailable to some. Pokemon musicals. Pokemon movie studio. In-game seasons.

Gen 6: Graphical overhaul. Graphics now in full 3d rather than 2d sprites. Mega evolutions. Sky battles. Horde battles. Super training. Pokemon ami. Player search system. Fairy type added. Weather effects nerfed. Some type matchups changed. Trainer customization added. 3d rather than grid based movement.

As you can see there have been significant changes each gen. The only common factor is the very core of gameplay. Party of 6. 4 moves. Turn based. The game now has a massive competitive community due to the depth it has gained.

The problem i have with cod is not that it's similar to older cods. It's that they charge $60 for as much content that you'd get in a borderlands dlc pack. Personally i like cod. I find the gameplay fun. But i only play it at friends houses, because i don't feel like it's worth the money.
#94 to #27 - Visual (10/10/2013) [-]
You forgot to mention that since the originals, they added double battles, triple battles, rotation battles, new types, online matchmaking, each game has it's own little mini-game unrelated to battling, pokemon forms, and a handful more features I can't think off the top of my head right now. I mean sure, it is still based around battling pokemon in a turn-based matches. But they change it up so much that it feels greater every new game, it feels fresh while not feeling entirely new.

Sure it's understandable if you don't like the games, but to say it's not growing or changing is completely untrue.

Although shooters revolve around just point-and-click at enemies and doesn't feel as rewarding (to me at least) compared to outwitting your opponent with a carefully picked and trained team. Don't get me wrong, I still really like shooters, I play Team Fortress 2 and Battlefield 3 a lot.
#141 to #94 - frolite (10/10/2013) [-]
So 20 years into the franchise all they have is adding two more or three more pokemon into a battle? And some mini games? Online matchmaking is pretty much a must nowadays so thats not really anything too amazing. I loved pokemon just as much as the next kid growing up i mean dam i cried so hard when my little cousin reset my crystal version and i lost a 86 dragonite. My point is Pokemon has shown as much innovation as CoD since release. Still getting X tho.
User avatar #107 to #94 - ZenMacros ONLINE (10/10/2013) [-]
Wow, how could I forget about double/triple/rotation battles?
User avatar #79 to #27 - ZenMacros ONLINE (10/10/2013) [-]
Except that's not true at all given the tons of features that have been added/revamped throughout the years. Saying the only thing they add are maps, Pokemon, and better graphics is an exaggeration.
#90 to #79 - frolite (10/10/2013) [-]
Like what exactly the challenge tower back in gold and silver? Other then that there really wasn't anything new. Emerald added an entire island full of those trainer towers. All you do is catch pokemon raise your favorites beat the elite 4 maybe fill the pokedex if you really want And that's about it revamping things isn't exactly adding anything new. I'm not defending CoD in anyway don't like fps titles never really got into them but they're guilty of the same thing revamping and polishing old ideas and adding a little tweak here and there but nothing truely new.
User avatar #103 to #90 - ZenMacros ONLINE (10/10/2013) [-]
Physical/Special split and abilities are the first things that come to mind, and they both had a huge effect on how battles play out. Not to mention adding types and a ******* of moves, fixing the type chart, hold items, and for X/Y, horde encounters and sky battles, and that's only counting things that have/had an effect on actual battles. Other aspects are a different story and there are tons of things that have been added. Sure, you still catch Pokemon and raise them and beat gyms/E4 (and to be honest, I myself am getting tired of that same formula), but that's mainly what Pokemon is about.

I will say that these things are added gradually, so there typically isn't a huge change in between a gen and the following gen (except the first two things I mentioned), but they add up over time. So I will agree they don't put too much effort into changing the games between gens, but saying it hasn't changed much since gen I is just ridiculous.
#243 to #103 - frolite (10/11/2013) [-]
So basically nothing changed until X/Y is what you're saying.
User avatar #252 to #243 - ZenMacros ONLINE (10/11/2013) [-]
Except most of the things I mentioned were implemented long before X/Y. It's like you didn't even read my comment.
#256 to #252 - frolite (10/11/2013) [-]
Pretty sure special attacks have been around since Red and Blue. So they just added moves? Kinda like how CoD just adds guns. Holding items have been around since Gold and Silver thats nothing special. Gold and Silver added Steel types as far as i know that was the only new type until X/Y. I'm not saying pokemon sucks or anything but for people to act as if it really changed or done anything substantially different since release is just silly.
User avatar #259 to #256 - ZenMacros ONLINE (10/11/2013) [-]
First off, saying what Gold/Silver added does nothing for your argument seeing as how you're claiming nothing has changed since Red/Blue.

Second, I know Special attacks have been around since the beginning. I'm referring to the split between Physical and Special. Before, whether a move was Physical or Special depended on its type (eg: Fire type moves were Special, Rock type moves were Physical, etc.). In Gen IV a split between the two was implemented that made it so any type move could be Physical or Special depending on what the actual move itself was. This change was incredibly significant for battling.
#270 to #259 - frolite (10/11/2013) [-]
So since red and blue all they did was split type special attacks add new pokemon. Let you battle more then one pokemon at a time. And what was it horde battles? I'm grossly ignorant to pokemon games after gen 3 never saw it really going in any new direction so i went with a PSP instead. All i played on my GBA was pokemon anyways but it's fine all i wanted to say was that pokemon never really evolved (get it) since Red and blue. But yeah i guess agree to disagree.
User avatar #271 to #270 - ZenMacros ONLINE (10/11/2013) [-]
No, I actually said they did a lot more than just that. But yeah, agree to disagree.
User avatar #22 to #21 - soupkittenagain ONLINE (10/10/2013) [-]
What about how the characters look more 3D?
#23 to #22 - Hightower (10/10/2013) [-]
"minor graphical upgrades "
User avatar #33 to #23 - alstorp (10/10/2013) [-]
Well going from 2D to 3D isn't really minor.
#36 to #33 - Hightower (10/10/2013) [-]
Fixed camera angles man. It's not 3D it's 2D, lust like every other entry, just with improved sprites.
User avatar #313 to #36 - alstorp (10/11/2013) [-]
"Unlike previous games in the main series, Pokémon X and Y feature a three dimensional style of gameplay, and 3D modeled characters and creatures are used, rather than sprites like has always been done in the main series."
User avatar #24 to #23 - soupkittenagain ONLINE (10/10/2013) [-]
I see.... Well I hope one day that they realize the potential of how amazing Pokemon could be as a console game. They actually have addressed that not too long ago. They said it probably won't happen...
#25 to #24 - Hightower (10/10/2013) [-]
Ya, it's kinda ****** . The series had potential to be a major console rpg. Just think of how much of the world could fit onto a console game, and how many other pokemon games could have had their mechanics incorporated into it. They could have had side games like Snap, or Stadium.
 Friends (0)