-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Pokemon Emerald 1up.com review
- Thread starter Wario64
- Start date
Metal Messiah
Member
fallout said:
The fact is that GOOD STUFF ain't enough.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Plenty of things are added/changed from one set of Pokémon titles to another, but this is not such a title. Why it's appearing two years after the other two in its family is a good question, though.Amir0x said:
JoshuaJSlone said:
I think it's probably better that way. Releasing Ruby and Sapphire, then Emerald six months later... At least this way, people have had time to play through R & S, then go through Fire Red and Leaf Green. That way, it's not like it's the same adventure, the same locations, all over again in direct succession. Time has helped us forget.
Except I'm levelling up like a bitch in Pokémon Ruby right now.
This changes guide should show you people a lesson or two o.o! (Beware spoilers though)
http://db.gamefaqs.com/portable/gbadvance/file/pokemon_emerald_changes.txt
For example....
Not to mention ability/item/berry changes.
As for how many PKMN are in this game~its well over 200. With just R or S you could only get 193/202 POKĂ©MON, 195/202 if you had the Southern Island ticket & Colo Bonus disc. Emerald pretty much (though not completely) nullifies Colosseum's usefulness in obtaining the G/S/C POKĂ©MON.
http://db.gamefaqs.com/portable/gbadvance/file/pokemon_emerald_changes.txt
For example....
Not to mention ability/item/berry changes.
As for how many PKMN are in this game~its well over 200. With just R or S you could only get 193/202 POKĂ©MON, 195/202 if you had the Southern Island ticket & Colo Bonus disc. Emerald pretty much (though not completely) nullifies Colosseum's usefulness in obtaining the G/S/C POKĂ©MON.
JoshuaJSlone said:
No. I've played almost every Pokemon title that's come to the US. While their clearly are changes, they're so insignificant from title to title that it's like playing the same game with a few new Pokemon, perhaps an extra competition or two and maybe a bike!
For one of the best selling series ever, this is a travesty to me. It's one of the least improved "big" series ever, and every time a new one comes out it disappoints me that Nintendo doesn't apply its same standard of quality as it does for games like Zelda and Mario Platformers. Shit, it's 2005 and it's on GBA, but even on GBA the graphics look dated. Goodness, they can't even improve the graphics. They added color, a few extra animations, perhaps a reflection in the water!? ARGHHH...
...*fixes tie*
I will wait for Pokemon Unlimited Deluxe Red Fuscia Polka Dotted Edition, which contains every Pokemon ever made, a Pokemon brushing competition, touch screen mini-games featuring Pikachu and a downloader that allows you to simply download every "new" canned animation and Pokemon they decide to incrementally add to the series for a charge of 50 cents.
Crankenstein
Banned
Mine's pre-ordered. Gotta catch and fight 'em all. Take that, haters. :lol
Amir0x said:
No. While I won't come out say that the changes made are extraordinary from game to expansion, I can CERTAINLY see why someone who's content with say, Ru/Sa would not care to pay $30 or $35 for Em. However, the changes from core game to core game (Pokemon 1 to 2 to 3) are pretty freakin' dramatic, PARTICULARLY from 2 to 3.
Crankenstein
Banned
Amir0x said:
The same could be siaaidd for Winning Eleven, Madden, Dyansty warriors, MGS, Gran Tourismo, Halo... the list goes on.
Mejilan said:Ah, ok. Then yeah, you're crazy.
No, I'm not, you just swallow things wholesale without any real contemplation. Or your standards are low, which I have come to believe is probably the case.
Each successive Pokemon game is just so remarkably similar. You start your character, you catch some Pokemon, and you go around the world beating various gym leaders, gathering badges and the like and doing all sorts of silliness like that.
From a visual sector, it's self-explanatory. The game has added color, and in the GBA versions it added like reflections in the water and an extra bit of color/animation. It's just such a poor improvement over what it could be here. It looks ugly even by GBA standards, which is a disappointment. Golden Sun looks pretty good for a GBA RPG. Pokemon, not so much.
For gameplay, it's still largely the same. There's double team battle Pokemon or whatnot, but growth to your Pokemon remains fundamentally the same. You ride a bike. You play around with the new Pokemon they added and squeal with glee when you find that RARE ONE you wanted. They added, like, a Pokemon competition and some other stupid shit that does nothing to enhance the core gameplay. Which is, as said, the same exact thing. The battle system has worked pretty much the exact same way since the first, with the best improvements coming in the form of new Pokemon and a few new moves and animations. You evolve your Pokemon in the same way, and hey sometimes their is stones you can use to evolve them forcefully!
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Crankenstein said:
The same can be said of a LOT of things, you're correct. Although your dubious choices in this list which include MGS and Gran Turismo is a little suspect. But of course, Madden and Dynasty Warriors, Winning Eleven, etc... you're not far off the mark.
Actually, my standards are insanely high. I don't know of anyone in real life with higher standards than me. It's a bit of an inside joke amongst my friends. "Oh look, Mej hates this game too." My one real weakness, I guess, would be the Dynasty Warriors series. But, though I do play the games (not religiously, like MAF, Drinky, Mr Bob) I know how ghetto the games really are.
You can't look at my game collection and say that my standards are low, because if a particular series has a couple of brilliant games, I'll buy them all, the good and the bad. A much better indicator of just how high my standards are would be the games I actually PLAY, not buy. That's something you know a lot less about. Regardless.
Sure, the games (talking about Pokemon, now) haven't changed too much graphically, but you're essentially saying it hasn't evolved much because it maintains it's traditional RPG roots. Graphics and stories are really what Pokemon are about, however. The core of the games (numbers, stats, attacks, creatures, balance) and the underlying gameplay around that (namely, customization), all have changed dramatically from engine to engine (meaning, from Pokemon 1, to 2, to 3.) Not to mention that the exploration element remains fantastic from game to game too.
To say that the graphics, plot-type, and ultimate goal of the game rule the gameplay, on a fundamental level (as your post suggests to me) is ridiculous.
You can't look at my game collection and say that my standards are low, because if a particular series has a couple of brilliant games, I'll buy them all, the good and the bad. A much better indicator of just how high my standards are would be the games I actually PLAY, not buy. That's something you know a lot less about. Regardless.
Sure, the games (talking about Pokemon, now) haven't changed too much graphically, but you're essentially saying it hasn't evolved much because it maintains it's traditional RPG roots. Graphics and stories are really what Pokemon are about, however. The core of the games (numbers, stats, attacks, creatures, balance) and the underlying gameplay around that (namely, customization), all have changed dramatically from engine to engine (meaning, from Pokemon 1, to 2, to 3.) Not to mention that the exploration element remains fantastic from game to game too.
To say that the graphics, plot-type, and ultimate goal of the game rule the gameplay, on a fundamental level (as your post suggests to me) is ridiculous.
Crankenstein
Banned
Amir0x said:
GT is still about the same, just graphcial updates. There was a jump with MGS to MGS2 in differing control and adding first person perspective, but it was not nearly as a shift as say Metroid this gen. I might have been a touch overzelaous with MG.
Mejilan said:
You did not list a single way it is dramatically different. It is the same thing from game to game. Whatever silliness you're imposing over the gameplay in a thinly veiled attempt to display it as something truly different is absurd.
You just suggested above that the "dramatic" changes happen to lie in NEW CREATURES and BALANCE, so you're just coming back to what I did. That the changes aren't dramatic, just simple tweaks and repackaging that Nintendo uses to get gullible PokeFans to the store to buy the next million copies. It's the same cynical reason Nintendo releases two different copies of it, because they know some fools will buy both.
And, uh, Pokemon is about stories? Could have fooled me! If THAT'S an example of your "SUPER HIGH STANDARDS THAT IS AN IN JOKE AMONG FRIENDS", I can't imagine what you consider a bad game.
Oh wait, yes I can. You consider Dark Cloud 2 a bad game! :lol It's like bizarro world!
Crankenstein said:
Well, I think it depends on what you consider "new." I'm willing to respect this thought, although clearly there are plenty of new modes in GT4 (and previously, GT3: A-Spec) that I don't think you're taking into consideration with your assessment.
Crankenstein said:
Are you saying that every game that doesn't change as monumentally as Metroid to Metroid Prime is "the same shit"? I mean, I'm not even asking that out of Pokemon.
The change from MGS to MGS2 was pretty stark, I'd say. But the change from MGS2 to MGS3 was HUGE, for various reasons.
I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty with you because you're nothing but a wall of argument. You're never going to change your mind, and I've only seen you ONCE ever even acknowledge that the opposing argument had a point, and it took dictionary.com to get you to see that. It's useless.
I will say this. Unless you play Pokemon competitively, you'll NEVER understand how big the changes are. If all you do is play the story mode, then I can see where you're coming from. You're still wrong, however. It's a fact that the main story mode of the Pokemon RPGs don't fully utilize the rather amazing concept they've created with the series.
My bad. I meant to say that graphics and story are NOT what Pokemon are about. Thinking faster than I type.
I will say this. Unless you play Pokemon competitively, you'll NEVER understand how big the changes are. If all you do is play the story mode, then I can see where you're coming from. You're still wrong, however. It's a fact that the main story mode of the Pokemon RPGs don't fully utilize the rather amazing concept they've created with the series.
My bad. I meant to say that graphics and story are NOT what Pokemon are about. Thinking faster than I type.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
this chestnut again?
Amir0x, you need help.
For a game you so obviously hate, you have (apparently - and i'll be honest, i don't believe a word of it) completed 2 of them, and played the rest to almost completion which would total up to close to _at least_ 100+ hours. And if i recall correctly, you never bought any of they, you hired them all from blockbusters? *scratches chin*
Amir0x, you need help.
For a game you so obviously hate, you have (apparently - and i'll be honest, i don't believe a word of it) completed 2 of them, and played the rest to almost completion which would total up to close to _at least_ 100+ hours. And if i recall correctly, you never bought any of they, you hired them all from blockbusters? *scratches chin*
Mejilan said:
I don't acknowledge opposing arguments have a point when I feel they don't and when they clearly have not shown that they do have a point. Why would I acknolwedge that unless I believed you had a point? Believe me, I've stated people have had points before - I've stated I was wrong before. And when I do state that, it's because I genuinely feel that way. I'm not just going to throw around that kind of statement because arguing with me is frusturating. It should be frusturating, I have an opinion and if you're debating with me you need to show me why I should put clout in yours.
Mejilan said:
So now there's another qualifier? I need to play Pokemon competitively? Well, yes, I'm sure that's like the huge draw. And I have played Pokemon with a friend a few times (although none of my friends like handhelds, so I don't really get to do it much anymore). But what you suggested above does not enhance your argument, rather just goes to the central point: They have created an "amazing" concept, but refuse to put any meaningful enhancements and dramatic changes which heighten the strategy and skill required in the gameplay. I mean, there's plenty of things you could do without completely changing things.
DCharlie said:
I don't HATE it, I think it's ridiculous that they have done so little to change the gameplay through like FIFTEEN different games. I think, like Mejilan, the concept is good.
And I actually purchased a Pokemon game before, and borrowed a few from my Mother's friends son who is young and has tons of GB/GBA games.
Are you purposefully misinterpreting what I say?
I'm not frustrated. I'm amused. Grasping at a lot of straws here. I want you to concede because I'm frustrated? Let me distill what I said. I won't bother to disect the Pokemon series for you because I don't believe you'll understand what I say, or even aknowledge what I say should you understand it.
Qualifier? Competitive play IS what Pokemon is all about. The story mode is there only to get you a leg up, and provide a means to create your army, as it were. The fact that you view this is a 'qualifier' proves to me that you don't know WHAT the hell you're talking about in this thread. Competitive play is the true concept, arguably, and the story mode just a means for you to more fully realize it. *shakes head*
I will say this. I can definitely see how someone who only plays the story modes, primarily, would be disappointed in the series as it continues to grow and expand.
Amir0x said:
I'm not frustrated. I'm amused. Grasping at a lot of straws here. I want you to concede because I'm frustrated? Let me distill what I said. I won't bother to disect the Pokemon series for you because I don't believe you'll understand what I say, or even aknowledge what I say should you understand it.
Qualifier? Competitive play IS what Pokemon is all about. The story mode is there only to get you a leg up, and provide a means to create your army, as it were. The fact that you view this is a 'qualifier' proves to me that you don't know WHAT the hell you're talking about in this thread. Competitive play is the true concept, arguably, and the story mode just a means for you to more fully realize it. *shakes head*
I will say this. I can definitely see how someone who only plays the story modes, primarily, would be disappointed in the series as it continues to grow and expand.
Crankenstein
Banned
Amir0x said:
No, I'm not implying that at all. I used Metroid as an example of a series that went through monumental changes this gen. Personally, I like the changes. Plus, the GBA versions allowed old school Metroid to flourish. The differing Pokemon games have numerous changes that distinguish them from previous iterations, some requiring astute skills. MGS2 changed to true 3D and added first person. MGS2 was bad enough to make me avoid MGS3. From what I played of the MGS3 demo, it seemed like more MGS2 with differing story. MGS:tTS>>> MGS3 demo and all that implies.
aside: Kojima needs to drop MG and work on series that he really excels in (Splinter Cell is so much better than MG for stealth) or innovates on like ZOE and Boktai.
I'd imagine playing the Pokemon games competively is akin to playing fighting games competively. Most casuals wouldn't give a flying fuck about the comparitive underlying nuances between Super Street Fighter 2 and Street Fighter 3: Third Strike or VF3 and VF4: Evo, but for those in tune with the in-depth mechanics and strategies, there's a world of difference.
Of course, this is just speculation, as I haven't really touched many Pokemon games, but that's the vibe I get from Mejilan's posts.
Of course, this is just speculation, as I haven't really touched many Pokemon games, but that's the vibe I get from Mejilan's posts.
The differences between each Pokemon generation are as big, if not bigger, than the changes from Super Mario Bros. to Super Mario Bros. 3 to Super Mario World.
This is exactly correct. Amir0x is to Pokemon as I am to Street Fighter - I've played through them but, somewhat ignorantly, find them all the same.
Ristamar said:
This is exactly correct. Amir0x is to Pokemon as I am to Street Fighter - I've played through them but, somewhat ignorantly, find them all the same.
Crankenstein
Banned
Ristamar said:
You hit the nail on the head.
Mejilan said:
Hahahahahahaha.
Oh man, that is priceless.
Mejilan said:
No, competitive play is the end game. That's what you do AFTER you sink hours into the game trying to build your Pokemon. You don't just go fight with a lvl 1 Pikachu and then say you're at the core concept. When you fight competitively, what are you using to fight? The battle system. So if you distill all of it down, what has changed in that regard? Very, very little. There's new Pokemon, some new animations, some new moves and tweaked balance and you can play with doubles or whatever. That's all that's there from title to title.
Mejilan said:
So, then you can understand that disappointment, which is still a huge chunk of what the title offers. To disregard that is silly. So then already part of the product is a disappointment. "Competitively", what ultimate changes have been done to the gameplay? I mean, this is what we're debating, so back it up.
Crankenstein said:
MGS:tTS <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<x3847347837246387436832 MGS3.
Pokemon has most certainly had major updates to its battle system during the latest versions.
Most notably is the breeding which allows your Pokemons to get abilities they normal would never have.
The moves on the Pokemons have been upgrade and tweaked to offer more challenge and diversity. More “cross breeds” which gives new weaknesses and strengths have been introduced.
Pokemon is about challenging other players and compete. It is a PvP game at heart and not an RPG. If you never play some serious battle with someone who knows what they are doing, then youÂ’re missing out on 90% of the content Pokemon has to offer.
The story mode is shallow and is nothing more then a filler for the actual gameplay Pokemon offersÂ… which is the meeting and battle with other people.
I understand that someone who never competed and tried to raise a competitive battle team can't see the changes made to the game. But those who are playing the “real” game have seen a great evolution to the battle system.
Most notably is the breeding which allows your Pokemons to get abilities they normal would never have.
The moves on the Pokemons have been upgrade and tweaked to offer more challenge and diversity. More “cross breeds” which gives new weaknesses and strengths have been introduced.
Pokemon is about challenging other players and compete. It is a PvP game at heart and not an RPG. If you never play some serious battle with someone who knows what they are doing, then youÂ’re missing out on 90% of the content Pokemon has to offer.
The story mode is shallow and is nothing more then a filler for the actual gameplay Pokemon offersÂ… which is the meeting and battle with other people.
I understand that someone who never competed and tried to raise a competitive battle team can't see the changes made to the game. But those who are playing the “real” game have seen a great evolution to the battle system.
Crankenstein
Banned
:lol
Where does that put MGS2? Out of all mathematical computations possible short of God's which are not bound by time and space?
Ristamar eloquently summed up my position, and put it into a fighting game light.
Well, the story mode is as big as you want it to be. I would NOT say it is a HUGE chunk of the gameplay. You could easily plow through it in a dozen or two hours with only a core team of 6 pokemon, occasionally swapping out some members when you get an amazing new one.
If you sit there and actually try to find and evolve them all, then yeah, you could easily spend HUNDREDS of hours going through the story. In that sense, the experience is very customizable. The same amount of 'story' could last you 30 hours, me 150.
But you're wrong in saying that the completion of the story is required before the "end game" begins. The competetive aspect of the game is there almost from the beginning, and changes CONSIDERABLY depending on how far you are in the story. Think of the # of badges that you have as a kind of built in tiering system. You're best bet is to fight someone on the same tier as you, and this can be done all throughout the game successfully, not just once you finish and have your supposedly uber team.
It's amazing to see how your OWN strategies, tastes, teams, etc, change from 'tier to tier' if you will.
Well, the story mode is as big as you want it to be. I would NOT say it is a HUGE chunk of the gameplay. You could easily plow through it in a dozen or two hours with only a core team of 6 pokemon, occasionally swapping out some members when you get an amazing new one.
If you sit there and actually try to find and evolve them all, then yeah, you could easily spend HUNDREDS of hours going through the story. In that sense, the experience is very customizable. The same amount of 'story' could last you 30 hours, me 150.
But you're wrong in saying that the completion of the story is required before the "end game" begins. The competetive aspect of the game is there almost from the beginning, and changes CONSIDERABLY depending on how far you are in the story. Think of the # of badges that you have as a kind of built in tiering system. You're best bet is to fight someone on the same tier as you, and this can be done all throughout the game successfully, not just once you finish and have your supposedly uber team.
It's amazing to see how your OWN strategies, tastes, teams, etc, change from 'tier to tier' if you will.
Don't try to deny ecstasy!nubbe said:
But you can't make a good Pokemon army unless you play the main game, so it IS important, if not vital.
But we're still going back to the battle system. You're saying crossbreeds add new weaknesses and strengths and that there's new moves and tweaks. I've already accepted all that. My point is that these are not fundamental changes to the gameplay, which still plays the same way. With you selecting an attack and then waiting your turn again, except you just have to take into account more weaknesses/strengths/balance tweaks. That's what I am saying. Let me give you an example that is not in any way related to the direction I want Pokemon to go in, but just shows an underlining difference I'm talking about.
You know the difference between, say, Final Fantasy 7 and Final Fantasy 8. Ok. Let's put aside what you think about those games (I didn't like FF8 myself). But in FF8, you're sucking powers out of monsters, and in FF7 you're buying and finding materia to customize your character. There's a fundamental difference in how you approach the gameplay here, you see? And yet they still use the same basic battle system, with is turn based or whatever or active turn based or whatever cheesy term they're using now-a-days.
Pokemon doesn't change this way. It's just the same battle system tweaked a bit here and there to add a tad more depth where before there was none. The gameplay itself doesn't really change, just what you need to take into account. To me, this is not acceptable for a game with so many sequels.
Crankenstein
Banned
Amir0x said:
I see where you are coming from but, Ristamar's post sums it up very well. There is much similarity on the surface, but the differences are seen dramatically at higher levels and at closer competition.
The method of attacking hasn't changed, but other features have that make it different enough. We have our outside moves like hail, double battles, various spells and items. It's really not so much the attacking that's important but the Pokemon doing the attacking. And with what we've seen of Generation 4 so far, the changes look as good as ever.
Diamond and Pearl will probably be revealed smack dab in the middle of the month guys, which should be great.
Diamond and Pearl will probably be revealed smack dab in the middle of the month guys, which should be great.
Crankenstein said:
Perhaps, and I acknowledge that their are nuances that are amplified upon extensive competitive play. But, to put it bluntly, I just don't feel that adding a "fire" weakness to that bird crossbreed Pokemon is enough of a change from where we should be all these sequels later. Perhaps Pokemon DS changes this, and as always I am willing to give it a chance.
Amir0x, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Just because you catch creatures, choose commands with A, and watch battle animations, the games haven't changed much? Is that your position? Hell, that's true of MOST RPGs in general. I'm not trying to dumb down your argument, just trying to understand the core of it.
How many times do we have to tell you that the story mode (your main exposure to the game) doesn't fully encapsulate the changes made to the gameplay?
You will NOT understand the ramifactions of the changes (which incorporate both minor tweaks and complete revamps) unless you've played the games competetively, heavily, from one version to the next. Unless you've done so, you're not qualified to discuss this further. Sorry.
It'd be like trying to explain SF2 Ryu from SF2T Ryu to SSF2T Ryu, to someone who's only played SF1. Only, much worse, because fighting games only have a dozen or two characters to begin with.
Frankly, the biggest leaps in the Pokemon series are in just how much you can customize the development of your creatures, and that completely mixes up both your own strategies, and those you fight against.
How many times do we have to tell you that the story mode (your main exposure to the game) doesn't fully encapsulate the changes made to the gameplay?
You will NOT understand the ramifactions of the changes (which incorporate both minor tweaks and complete revamps) unless you've played the games competetively, heavily, from one version to the next. Unless you've done so, you're not qualified to discuss this further. Sorry.
It'd be like trying to explain SF2 Ryu from SF2T Ryu to SSF2T Ryu, to someone who's only played SF1. Only, much worse, because fighting games only have a dozen or two characters to begin with.
Frankly, the biggest leaps in the Pokemon series are in just how much you can customize the development of your creatures, and that completely mixes up both your own strategies, and those you fight against.
Mejilan said:
No, read my example. I'm saying that plenty of RPGs even in the same series have marked differences which require you to approach battle in a different way, and this has not happened to Pokemon. And I mean this fundamentally, which I don't think you're grasping. I don't mean tweaks and balance enhancements. I mean dramatic changes. Just to give a silly example (again, not how I want Pokemon to change): Like if you made Pokemon battling on different landscapes which you can use for cover/advantages before setting up your moves. That's a dramatic difference which fundamentally changes how you approach the gameplay, and is far above a mere tweak.
Mejilan said:
I'll decide what I'm qualified to discuss, thanks.
$23.88 w/ free shipping. Makes me even want to get it.
http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4337825?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4337825?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
Amir0x said:
The gameplay will not change fundamentally (as you define it, not as I define it) for the simple reason that they need to maintain a certain amount of cross-compatability between the game titles. Hell, the primary reason why they remade Red/Blue (FireRed/LeafGreen) was because they felt they had to evolve the gameplay to a degree which broke compatability between the new and old. Then again, you seem to classify the changes they had made as 'mere tweak(s)', so with that, I'll just leave you to ignorantly disagree to your heart's content. I'm going back to Stella Deus now.
BTW, if you haven't already gotten the game, don't. It's FUNDAMENTALLY IDENTICAL to FFT, so avoid.
Crankenstein
Banned
Amir0x said:
From my perspective and experience with the series, you aren't seeing the forest through the trees. But that is fair enough, we all have our games/series that want "Wow" and dramatic changes/differences that instead have subtle, but far reaching differences that we are not sensitive too or play into situations that these changes become readily apparent and important.