What Are We Really Talking About?
It's really pretty simple, I love video games, and I really enjoy the written word. I find myself listening to books more often than reading them of late, mainly because that's just easier. I can listen while I work out, while I jog, while I play games, while I hunt Pokémon and while I drive. So why not listen to books instead of read them? But, we're not technically just talking about my method of reading.
What I'm talking about, is game-books. Books based on the content of games, and there are tons. Seriously, for every epic RPG, massive scale gaming universe, and terribly convoluted plot, there's a book, licensed or fan written, that attempts to explain something or extrapolate some new story. You can see this in basically everything, JRPGs like Final Fantasy and Kingdom Hearts; science fiction shooters like Halo and Mass Effect; high adventures like The Legend of Zelda and Infinity Blade; strategy games such as Command & Conquer and StarCraft; stealth games like Assassin's Creed and Metal Gear Solid; and yes, even indie games like Five Nights at Freddy's, a.k.a. FNaF.
Which is actually what has brought this to the forefront of my mind. I adore the FNaF games, I'm not particularly good at them by any means. I haven't even fully beat the second one, and refuse to play the third and fourth ones until I do (doesn't help that I've had to restart because I swapped form mobile to PC and wanted to beat the first game anew). FNaF has this weird rich lore to it, mostly crafted through the fanbase's relentless insistence that there is one. I mean, I'm sure Scott Cawthon wanted there to be some internal story to the original FNaF, who doesn't want their game to have a plot? But, the series has exploded, spanning across four core games, a spinoff rpg, a fifth sequel game (and possible series), an upcoming movie, several fan made games, and yes, a book.
Don't misunderstand, I haven't read the book (past the first page), but it has drawn me to the point that I now own it, and have begun to read it. Five Nights at Freddy's: The Silver Eyes is a book that promises to expand on the lore of the series, while establishing it's own sort of existential lore. Let's face it, FNaF already has so much crap going on that writing a book on it would be hard without breaking a few twigs. So no, I don't have an opinion on it, but I will.
It's the oddest thing, there are games with far more developed plots out there (such as Metal Gear Solid) that I love to play and study, but I don't find myself reaching out for their books. Something about FNaF just draws me to it, makes me want to know more. Maybe it's because the game was made by an independent man just pursuing his dream. Perhaps this is all the result of a lot of internet hype around a simplistic, if entertaining, game. Who knows.
As a side note (which I seem to have more and more often): Just a few days ago I found myself in our managing editor's office, explaining the mechanics of Pokémon Go to him, and I thought to myself, "This is the job I truly want, to explain video games to people." Wouldn't that be fantastic? Best. Job. Ever.
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rant. Show all posts
Tuesday, July 19, 2016
Monday, July 18, 2016
Pokémon is EVIL?!: POKéMON GO!
DEMONIC, SATANIC, AND JUST PLAIN EVIL...Or not...
A little background about myself might be in order here: so let's start with the fact that I was raised in Alabama, caught right in the Bible Belt, by a non-denominational mother, and a southern baptist father. That said, my childhood was dominated by...anything but the popular "garbage" of my generation. May I, just, list a few things that might have been considered evil, and I'll even agree to some extent on some notions. This list is in no way a complete list of the restrictions on my childhood, just some of the most notable!
Legend of Zelda: main character associates with fairies and uses magic. Sure, you can argue that fairies are representative of supernatural spirits, they lead people astray from the truth of God or whatever, but...it's a bloody child's video game! I mean, Disney was okay, but not Zelda. Come now.
Dragonball Z: Frankly, as a child I couldn't find anything wrong with Dragonball, and as an adult I've gone back and watched it, and I see my father's opposition keypoints, but they're based in ignorance. The key problems being characters with the title "demon" and the later introduced character "Mr. Satan," or "Hercule." Let me be clear, I understand my father's opposition to all things "demonic" but it's ridiculous when it comes down to other cultures' entertainment. Most anime assign the keyterm "demon" to powerful fighters and spirits, because that's what they're called. Plus, Piccolo, the first Demon King (the one my father saw and took issue with) isn't even a demon, heck, he's just a foreign creature that everyone called a demon (hmm...sounds familiar.) I wasn't praying to a statue of the Demon King Piccolo, heck, I was cheering for someone to kick his tail. Which happened, the Demon King was defeated, and his son overcame his father's evil and became a hero. If anything the story might be seen as having some semblance to the story of Christ, Goku being this Christ figure who promises everyone, even his greatest enemies, a second chance. Well, except for the Demon King, who...died. Fitting, I suppose.
Yu-Gi-Oh: Oh yeah, there's one I can actually stand behind. I really REALLY enjoyed that card game. Still do. I can recognize the evil seen in it too, the game is about summoning demons to destroy your opposition. For the most part, as long as you assume the interpretation that all things unnatural and magical are demons. So yeah, I can't necessarily disagree, but at the same time I argue that, again, it originates from a difference of culture and a simple desire for entertainment. No one is worshipping the Dark Magician as a savior of the universe, just playing him to win the game. The concept of "sacrificing" to summon more powerful creatures or to cast more powerful spells is akin in game logic to sacrificing a pawn to the enemy to setup a powerful gambit in chess.
Saturday Morning Cartoons: This one's different. Everything above I've been able to pin on Japanese culture and legitimacy due to different beliefs...but then you have American cartoons, such as Johnny Bravo, Ed Edd 'n' Eddy, and Cat-Dog. The best I can figure, my father took issue with these due to his opposition toward Johnny's womanizing, and just the sheer stupidity present in the other two. Which isn't unfounded, but, again, it's a children's cartoon. There's not a lot of deep philosophical thought in them, except at the end of a handful of episodes where it's like "Oh, and this is the moral objecting Johnny learned about womanizing," and then no further improvement on character. So yeah, okay, take issue with it, make sure it doesn't rot the mind, but forbid it as a sleight against God?
Pokémon: Here's the big one, for whatever reason. I suppose it's because it was just so easy to pick apart and it was the first BIG one. I mean, Dragonball was big, but it was a different kind of big. Pokémon was a video game, a card game and a tv series. In truth, I had minimal experience with the card game and video game. I was only really exposed to the anime for the longest time. Even that I had limited exposure to, and why? I honestly don't know except that someone in a church somewhere said "Hmm...Pokémon...Pokeymon...Pok-eymon...demon." That broke it, then came the logic: "Pokémon stands for Pocket Monster, monster is synonymous with demon." Yes...well it's also synonymous with rascal, does that mean everytime I was called a rascal I was secretly being called a demon? What about when we call dogs and cats little monsters, are they also demons? The idea that Pokémon are demons is probably the largest stretch in anything else I was forbidden from viewing.
I guess there is some sort of foundation for these things. What are they though? Is it that Ash is abnormally resilient, so he have demonic powers? I would argue that Ash was resilient because it was a children's cartoon, like Tom and Jerry, and you can't show him get killed by the first bolt of lightning that hits him. Maybe because Pokémon trainers are empathic with their Pokémon? Surely that shows some intervention of dark powers! Well...no. Pokémon trainers don't "understand" their Pokémon. It's not like communing with beasts, the evil power of witchcraft. It's like when I "understand" that my dog wants to play, or that my cat caught another mole and left it on the back porch as a gift. I don't have to speak to the spirit of the animal to know why she's meowing frantically and leading me around the house, I just have to be familiar with the my pets, which is what Pokémon trainers are, familiar. No...Pokémon aren't "familiars," stop it.
On the other hand, what would the series be without a bit of supernatural content? There is definitely a gym leader who "has psychic power" and another (maybe the same, I don't recall perfectly) who is "possessed by a ghost" and yes, that totally happens, and I'll agree that it's "satanic" or whatever. But let's glance at something real quick. The idea that these things happen isn't evil. I mean, the story of "Legion" speaks of the demonic possession of a man in the bible. These events in Pokémon aren't portrayed as good, glorious things that we should be excited about. In fact, our protagonist overcomes the psychic powers of his adversaries, and the possession of ghosts, through his own strength, determination, and trust in his comrades. Yeah sure, he didn't do it through "God" but...it's a children's cartoon, that's not Veggie-Tales, so yeah, no Divine Intervention.
There's also the ever present issue of "Evilution" in Pokémon, and yes, Pokémon does present "Evolution" in the very first game. But evolution in Pokémon, is actually metamorphosis. But, Pokémon also presents "the theory of evolution" as a scientific theory. No, that's not the "Man came from monkeys" theory, though I consent that Pokémon has that too, sort of, but instead it presents a series of bird Pokémon from different regions who have different traits based on where they're found. This is sort of the origin of "The Origin of Species" as written by Darwin, in that he studied birds from across a series of islands and found that they all came from the same root, but had adapted to their locations. Although I will concede that Pokémon does go directly against most ideologies by introducing the idea of both a "great creator" and a "root of all cellular life," the Pokémon mythos is a bit broken. They also expressly state in every instance that this is only how some scientists have perceived these Pokémon (Mew "may" be the first Pokémon and the origin of Pokémon, Arceus "may" be the God-like creator of the Pokéverse). Yeah, that's bending space a lot, again though, fictional universe, at no point does the Pokémon universe claim to be ours. Well...until Pokémon Go, and even then, it's just one more mythos out of thousands, like the one where ancient Egyptian Gods looked like Transformers and lived amongst humanity.
Anyways...
To the point that Pokémon is evil and is being used to corrupt our children, no, it's not. If anything Pokémon, and other RPG style games directed at children, help to do more than just entertain. Games in general have benefits to the function of the brain, benefits that I didn't go to college to study, but can recognize in my day to day life nonetheless. Of course these benefits also differ from person to person.
Due to Pokémon, I know the importance of organization, because I had to teach myself how important organization was, or I'd get rid of some pretty good catches. Sure, you learn this in school or from parental lecturing, but it sticks so much better when you don't realize you're learning it. Similarly Pokémon forces mathematical skills and logical reasoning on children. My level 20 Bellsprout doesn't stand a chance against a level 18 Charmeleon, but my level 17 Staryu can probably put up a good fight, only because of type advantages; at the same time, my level 30 Ivysaur will probably still wreck that level 18 Charmeleon, despite his elemental weakness, due to his excessive level.
Puzzle solving is required throughout the game, a necessity to revisit old information to better yourself, optimization to save time and space while getting the job done to the best of your abilities, all of these, lessons I learned from Pokémon. There's also intrinsic moral values I suppose, but I choose not to draw my moral values from the kid who says "even if my Pikachu isn't stronger than your Onix, even if I'm at a terrible disadvantage, I can still power through and win!" I'm more of the opinion that if Pikachu isn't a good match, maybe I should cut my losses and go catch a Mankey, there'll be time to improve my Pikachu later.
What was I saying? Oh yeah, Pokémon rocks, and is in no way satanic! At least, in as far as the Holy Bible isn't considered satanic. And, no, that's not me calling Pokémon the equivalent to the Holy Bible. It's me pointing out that evil existing doesn't make the content evil, the very presence of evil is the only reason for good to exist.
Is that it for my rant today? Yeah, I think so. I love my parents and I wouldn't be where I am without them, and frankly having these things cut from my childhood just adds value to them and my conversation, so I'm not mad. I'm just saying, these are the things I've witnessed, and my opinion on them. I can't blame anyone for what they believe or how they show it. Well, I mean, on common ground terms. But that's a debate not intended for this blog! As a side note:
Oh my gosh! I'm level 13 and I have a 1000+ Flareon! Yay!
#PokémonGo
A little background about myself might be in order here: so let's start with the fact that I was raised in Alabama, caught right in the Bible Belt, by a non-denominational mother, and a southern baptist father. That said, my childhood was dominated by...anything but the popular "garbage" of my generation. May I, just, list a few things that might have been considered evil, and I'll even agree to some extent on some notions. This list is in no way a complete list of the restrictions on my childhood, just some of the most notable!
Legend of Zelda: main character associates with fairies and uses magic. Sure, you can argue that fairies are representative of supernatural spirits, they lead people astray from the truth of God or whatever, but...it's a bloody child's video game! I mean, Disney was okay, but not Zelda. Come now.
Dragonball Z: Frankly, as a child I couldn't find anything wrong with Dragonball, and as an adult I've gone back and watched it, and I see my father's opposition keypoints, but they're based in ignorance. The key problems being characters with the title "demon" and the later introduced character "Mr. Satan," or "Hercule." Let me be clear, I understand my father's opposition to all things "demonic" but it's ridiculous when it comes down to other cultures' entertainment. Most anime assign the keyterm "demon" to powerful fighters and spirits, because that's what they're called. Plus, Piccolo, the first Demon King (the one my father saw and took issue with) isn't even a demon, heck, he's just a foreign creature that everyone called a demon (hmm...sounds familiar.) I wasn't praying to a statue of the Demon King Piccolo, heck, I was cheering for someone to kick his tail. Which happened, the Demon King was defeated, and his son overcame his father's evil and became a hero. If anything the story might be seen as having some semblance to the story of Christ, Goku being this Christ figure who promises everyone, even his greatest enemies, a second chance. Well, except for the Demon King, who...died. Fitting, I suppose.
Yu-Gi-Oh: Oh yeah, there's one I can actually stand behind. I really REALLY enjoyed that card game. Still do. I can recognize the evil seen in it too, the game is about summoning demons to destroy your opposition. For the most part, as long as you assume the interpretation that all things unnatural and magical are demons. So yeah, I can't necessarily disagree, but at the same time I argue that, again, it originates from a difference of culture and a simple desire for entertainment. No one is worshipping the Dark Magician as a savior of the universe, just playing him to win the game. The concept of "sacrificing" to summon more powerful creatures or to cast more powerful spells is akin in game logic to sacrificing a pawn to the enemy to setup a powerful gambit in chess.
Saturday Morning Cartoons: This one's different. Everything above I've been able to pin on Japanese culture and legitimacy due to different beliefs...but then you have American cartoons, such as Johnny Bravo, Ed Edd 'n' Eddy, and Cat-Dog. The best I can figure, my father took issue with these due to his opposition toward Johnny's womanizing, and just the sheer stupidity present in the other two. Which isn't unfounded, but, again, it's a children's cartoon. There's not a lot of deep philosophical thought in them, except at the end of a handful of episodes where it's like "Oh, and this is the moral objecting Johnny learned about womanizing," and then no further improvement on character. So yeah, okay, take issue with it, make sure it doesn't rot the mind, but forbid it as a sleight against God?
Pokémon: Here's the big one, for whatever reason. I suppose it's because it was just so easy to pick apart and it was the first BIG one. I mean, Dragonball was big, but it was a different kind of big. Pokémon was a video game, a card game and a tv series. In truth, I had minimal experience with the card game and video game. I was only really exposed to the anime for the longest time. Even that I had limited exposure to, and why? I honestly don't know except that someone in a church somewhere said "Hmm...Pokémon...Pokeymon...Pok-eymon...demon." That broke it, then came the logic: "Pokémon stands for Pocket Monster, monster is synonymous with demon." Yes...well it's also synonymous with rascal, does that mean everytime I was called a rascal I was secretly being called a demon? What about when we call dogs and cats little monsters, are they also demons? The idea that Pokémon are demons is probably the largest stretch in anything else I was forbidden from viewing.
I guess there is some sort of foundation for these things. What are they though? Is it that Ash is abnormally resilient, so he have demonic powers? I would argue that Ash was resilient because it was a children's cartoon, like Tom and Jerry, and you can't show him get killed by the first bolt of lightning that hits him. Maybe because Pokémon trainers are empathic with their Pokémon? Surely that shows some intervention of dark powers! Well...no. Pokémon trainers don't "understand" their Pokémon. It's not like communing with beasts, the evil power of witchcraft. It's like when I "understand" that my dog wants to play, or that my cat caught another mole and left it on the back porch as a gift. I don't have to speak to the spirit of the animal to know why she's meowing frantically and leading me around the house, I just have to be familiar with the my pets, which is what Pokémon trainers are, familiar. No...Pokémon aren't "familiars," stop it.
On the other hand, what would the series be without a bit of supernatural content? There is definitely a gym leader who "has psychic power" and another (maybe the same, I don't recall perfectly) who is "possessed by a ghost" and yes, that totally happens, and I'll agree that it's "satanic" or whatever. But let's glance at something real quick. The idea that these things happen isn't evil. I mean, the story of "Legion" speaks of the demonic possession of a man in the bible. These events in Pokémon aren't portrayed as good, glorious things that we should be excited about. In fact, our protagonist overcomes the psychic powers of his adversaries, and the possession of ghosts, through his own strength, determination, and trust in his comrades. Yeah sure, he didn't do it through "God" but...it's a children's cartoon, that's not Veggie-Tales, so yeah, no Divine Intervention.
There's also the ever present issue of "Evilution" in Pokémon, and yes, Pokémon does present "Evolution" in the very first game. But evolution in Pokémon, is actually metamorphosis. But, Pokémon also presents "the theory of evolution" as a scientific theory. No, that's not the "Man came from monkeys" theory, though I consent that Pokémon has that too, sort of, but instead it presents a series of bird Pokémon from different regions who have different traits based on where they're found. This is sort of the origin of "The Origin of Species" as written by Darwin, in that he studied birds from across a series of islands and found that they all came from the same root, but had adapted to their locations. Although I will concede that Pokémon does go directly against most ideologies by introducing the idea of both a "great creator" and a "root of all cellular life," the Pokémon mythos is a bit broken. They also expressly state in every instance that this is only how some scientists have perceived these Pokémon (Mew "may" be the first Pokémon and the origin of Pokémon, Arceus "may" be the God-like creator of the Pokéverse). Yeah, that's bending space a lot, again though, fictional universe, at no point does the Pokémon universe claim to be ours. Well...until Pokémon Go, and even then, it's just one more mythos out of thousands, like the one where ancient Egyptian Gods looked like Transformers and lived amongst humanity.
Anyways...
To the point that Pokémon is evil and is being used to corrupt our children, no, it's not. If anything Pokémon, and other RPG style games directed at children, help to do more than just entertain. Games in general have benefits to the function of the brain, benefits that I didn't go to college to study, but can recognize in my day to day life nonetheless. Of course these benefits also differ from person to person.
Due to Pokémon, I know the importance of organization, because I had to teach myself how important organization was, or I'd get rid of some pretty good catches. Sure, you learn this in school or from parental lecturing, but it sticks so much better when you don't realize you're learning it. Similarly Pokémon forces mathematical skills and logical reasoning on children. My level 20 Bellsprout doesn't stand a chance against a level 18 Charmeleon, but my level 17 Staryu can probably put up a good fight, only because of type advantages; at the same time, my level 30 Ivysaur will probably still wreck that level 18 Charmeleon, despite his elemental weakness, due to his excessive level.
Puzzle solving is required throughout the game, a necessity to revisit old information to better yourself, optimization to save time and space while getting the job done to the best of your abilities, all of these, lessons I learned from Pokémon. There's also intrinsic moral values I suppose, but I choose not to draw my moral values from the kid who says "even if my Pikachu isn't stronger than your Onix, even if I'm at a terrible disadvantage, I can still power through and win!" I'm more of the opinion that if Pikachu isn't a good match, maybe I should cut my losses and go catch a Mankey, there'll be time to improve my Pikachu later.
What was I saying? Oh yeah, Pokémon rocks, and is in no way satanic! At least, in as far as the Holy Bible isn't considered satanic. And, no, that's not me calling Pokémon the equivalent to the Holy Bible. It's me pointing out that evil existing doesn't make the content evil, the very presence of evil is the only reason for good to exist.
Is that it for my rant today? Yeah, I think so. I love my parents and I wouldn't be where I am without them, and frankly having these things cut from my childhood just adds value to them and my conversation, so I'm not mad. I'm just saying, these are the things I've witnessed, and my opinion on them. I can't blame anyone for what they believe or how they show it. Well, I mean, on common ground terms. But that's a debate not intended for this blog! As a side note:
Oh my gosh! I'm level 13 and I have a 1000+ Flareon! Yay!
#PokémonGo
Friday, February 26, 2016
Becoming a God: GODS OF EGYPT
Off Subject? Me? Never...
By now you've read the title of this post and said, "Hey, this is Arcade, not Cinema" and you're absolutely right, there's a method to this madness, check out my most recent post on My Cinema to find out what that method is. Or just keep reading.
By now you've read the title of this post and said, "Hey, this is Arcade, not Cinema" and you're absolutely right, there's a method to this madness, check out my most recent post on My Cinema to find out what that method is. Or just keep reading.
Okay, so above we have a theatrical poster for Gods of Egypt. Below we have something that has come and gone in video gaming, reverse box art for games. Typically this happens in video games where you can play as either the good guys or the bad guys, or at the very least, where the two opposing sides receive equal screen time and fan-squealing at convention. So why did I take the time to redesign this poster into those? Well first, it didn't consume all that much time, though it's a little shoddy, I'll be the first to say it, second, because this was a BETTER VIDEO GAME THAN MOVIE!
Here's the thing, to do Gods of Egypt on the scale the company wanted to do it, they had to computer generate literally every moment of the movie, it's ALL shot in front of a green-screen, and even the actors are CG throughout the movie. I'm not really here to critique the movie though, you can find that up there ^. Instead, I'm here to tell you what I think could have been done for this as a game.
So, for starters, how about we look at potentially the simplest method of execution. Do basically the same story (maybe get the names right, fix the setting up a bit, don't butcher the lore so much?) then give us control of our two male heroes, Horus and Bek. Then take a sort of Superman 64 approach to it (no, not wreck it, that's been done once already,) and give us puzzle sequences, and combat sequences. During puzzle sequences we'll control Bek a la Prince of Persia, and during combat sequences we'll rely on Horus, a la God of War, at least...the combat portions. Meanwhile you have some fun side game potential with Thoth and Hathor (did they even call her that?)
This is pretty simple, you start out with really basic abilities for both characters, actually, you START the game as full power Horus, but upon losing his eyes he goes back to "level 1" and has to relearn his abilities through the game. Maybe even give him a Devil May Cry/Dante's Inferno level up system where he gets to progressively get better based off an in game currency. Give the same thing to Bek, and let him be playable in combat as well, but with more emphasis on Horus. Similarly, Horus is necessary to complete some puzzles, but Bek is clearly more reliable when it comes to that. Boom, you have the entire game already laid out, with random encounters with wild mythological beasts (giant scarab beetles and...minotaur goats come to mind) and some of Seth's crimson soldiers (whatever he called those guys.) Boom, done. Need more material? You still have a pantheon of Gods to call upon, heck, maybe even let some of them lend Horus their power, as opposed to Set slaughtering them all and only taking one piece from any of them! You still have an epic final battle too.
The other option? RPG, full blown. Play as Bek, Horus, or even Set in the setting, and follow your own path. Or even have to play any other character, may Horus doesn't live through Set's betrayal, and a mortal has to ascend to Godhood to face off against Set. Unless I'm mistaken, the pharaohs were supposed to be Ra's divine will on Earth (maybe even his embodiment?) so why not another character deemed worthy of this? You can go on random side quests, join a religion, develop the world, let Bethesda build the game and you're basically guaranteed a beautiful experience. Just...get...things right...use one translation for all of you names, and stick as close to lore as possible, while maintaining and understandably enjoyable game, if you have to cut off a few toes (or talons) so be it.
But...just please get that time machine, jump back in time, and correct this mistake (and give me credit? Please?!)
Thursday, February 25, 2016
Misconceptions and Facts: POKéMON
FEELIN' RANTY?
So earlier today there was a leak that Nintendo had copyrighted Pokémon Sun and Pokémon Moon, not really all that surprising that we're going to get another generation of games (though we're still looking for Z!) but, I was pretty convinced they had already copyrighted these names years ago and just hadn't employed them yet. Well obviously internet, I was mistaken, whatever. This did create something that kind of upset me though:
I can't find any information regarding the Sun and Moon hacks for Ruby and Sapphire that were in production back in 2006, I figured there would be a youtube video demonstrating progress or something...but no. At least, not amongst the four thousand Pokémon fans who are posting "theories" about Pokémon Sun and Moon.
So, let's just get right into my rant, one of those videos (which I erroneously clicked on) claimed that Nintendo simply HAD to remake the fourth generation games Diamond and Pearl. Why? Well the initial argument is that the remakes have sold better every generation (HeartGold and SoulSilver sold better than FireRed and LeafGreen) but wait! He had no evidence! Aside from HeartGold and SoulSilver, the only other remake is Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, which actually shows lower sales than it's predecessor! What's that nonsense? Additionally, HeartGold and SoulSilver sold better than FireRed and LeafGreen because it came out during the early age of the DS, it was going to be a classic game on a completely different console! With better graphics, new features, and even a new gaming peripheral! I mean come on, how cool was the PokéWalker?! Meanwhile, FireRed and LeafGreen launched with...a wireless adapter...which wasn't even really a wireless adapter, it just let you play Pokémon with the kid across the room instead of having to sit next to him, can't get those cooties! Blech.
(Thanks Wikipedia! I tried to find a picture of kids using this, but no luck -_-)
Okay, so here's the thing about his argument, he also stated that Diamond and Pearl needed a remake because they were the best games in the series (or something VERY close to that), whoa boy, ain't nobody takin' that spot away from the first three gens. His basis? Well Pokémon sales are on the fall, they have been since Generation 1, every generation they have sold less copies...until Diamond and Pearl revitalized the franchise yay! But, they didn't.
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Pok%C3%A9mon
What revitalized the franchise was not those terrible games, it was the introduction of a new console, much like HeartGold and SoulSilver outselling FireRed and LeafGreen. It wasn't that the game was better, it was that the console was newer. Since then, the games have gone on the decline again, not because the followups were worse, but because the "Dual Screen" has lost its newness, and now we're throwing 3D out there like that added any new mechanics, it didn't Nintendo! And that's why the Pokémon market went back on the decline after Fourth Generation, there aren't really a lot of new gimmicks. Sure, Game Freak tried the riding Pokémon gimmick in Sixth Generation, which I was excited about, until I learned it only worked in one or two areas, what the heck is that?!
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/545400-pokemon
Also, how are you going to introduce a totally awesome feature in the Generation 2 remakes, and then take it out?! Like, in my opinion, sequels...follow ups...look games in the same series, that take place after games in the series, should only improve on features, not just throw away all the features. Generation 1 and 2 had the right idea. Hey, there's a new area now, let's link them! Hey, let's let you trade back and forth between the two very different games! You know what would be cool? If you could make Pokéballs. Gen 3 comes along...remember all those great ideas we had? "Yeah!" Screw'em. "Oh..." And Gen 3 introduced the Contests, a unique take on the gameplay, "Yeah...let's drop those too" in Gen 4! I don't feel like I need to say it, but what we lost between Gen 4 and Gen 5 was pretty simple, it was a feature only in HeartGold and SoulSilver, Pokémon that followed you around. I MEAN COME ON! Everyone who has played a Pokémon game has thought, "Hmph, all these NPCs have Pokémon follow them around, why can't I?" It can't be that ridiculous to do either, you've already done it twice! Once in Generation 4, with ALL Pokémon, and then the origin, Generation 1, Pokémon Yellow where frikkin' Pikachu followed you around!
(Thanks Bulbapedia...adorable)
It's not like it's not even in the other games! It's a minor feature in Diamond and Pearl, and they even give a shout out to it in Generation 5 with the Mienfoo, and characters who follow you around!
Now then, are you done ranting yet Caleb?
No, not yet, internet! In fact, I may never be done! But...for now let's say that I am. Catch you later internet!
So earlier today there was a leak that Nintendo had copyrighted Pokémon Sun and Pokémon Moon, not really all that surprising that we're going to get another generation of games (though we're still looking for Z!) but, I was pretty convinced they had already copyrighted these names years ago and just hadn't employed them yet. Well obviously internet, I was mistaken, whatever. This did create something that kind of upset me though:
I can't find any information regarding the Sun and Moon hacks for Ruby and Sapphire that were in production back in 2006, I figured there would be a youtube video demonstrating progress or something...but no. At least, not amongst the four thousand Pokémon fans who are posting "theories" about Pokémon Sun and Moon.
So, let's just get right into my rant, one of those videos (which I erroneously clicked on) claimed that Nintendo simply HAD to remake the fourth generation games Diamond and Pearl. Why? Well the initial argument is that the remakes have sold better every generation (HeartGold and SoulSilver sold better than FireRed and LeafGreen) but wait! He had no evidence! Aside from HeartGold and SoulSilver, the only other remake is Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, which actually shows lower sales than it's predecessor! What's that nonsense? Additionally, HeartGold and SoulSilver sold better than FireRed and LeafGreen because it came out during the early age of the DS, it was going to be a classic game on a completely different console! With better graphics, new features, and even a new gaming peripheral! I mean come on, how cool was the PokéWalker?! Meanwhile, FireRed and LeafGreen launched with...a wireless adapter...which wasn't even really a wireless adapter, it just let you play Pokémon with the kid across the room instead of having to sit next to him, can't get those cooties! Blech.
(Thanks Wikipedia! I tried to find a picture of kids using this, but no luck -_-)Okay, so here's the thing about his argument, he also stated that Diamond and Pearl needed a remake because they were the best games in the series (or something VERY close to that), whoa boy, ain't nobody takin' that spot away from the first three gens. His basis? Well Pokémon sales are on the fall, they have been since Generation 1, every generation they have sold less copies...until Diamond and Pearl revitalized the franchise yay! But, they didn't.
http://vgsales.wikia.com/wiki/Pok%C3%A9monWhat revitalized the franchise was not those terrible games, it was the introduction of a new console, much like HeartGold and SoulSilver outselling FireRed and LeafGreen. It wasn't that the game was better, it was that the console was newer. Since then, the games have gone on the decline again, not because the followups were worse, but because the "Dual Screen" has lost its newness, and now we're throwing 3D out there like that added any new mechanics, it didn't Nintendo! And that's why the Pokémon market went back on the decline after Fourth Generation, there aren't really a lot of new gimmicks. Sure, Game Freak tried the riding Pokémon gimmick in Sixth Generation, which I was excited about, until I learned it only worked in one or two areas, what the heck is that?!
http://knowyourmeme.com/photos/545400-pokemonAlso, how are you going to introduce a totally awesome feature in the Generation 2 remakes, and then take it out?! Like, in my opinion, sequels...follow ups...look games in the same series, that take place after games in the series, should only improve on features, not just throw away all the features. Generation 1 and 2 had the right idea. Hey, there's a new area now, let's link them! Hey, let's let you trade back and forth between the two very different games! You know what would be cool? If you could make Pokéballs. Gen 3 comes along...remember all those great ideas we had? "Yeah!" Screw'em. "Oh..." And Gen 3 introduced the Contests, a unique take on the gameplay, "Yeah...let's drop those too" in Gen 4! I don't feel like I need to say it, but what we lost between Gen 4 and Gen 5 was pretty simple, it was a feature only in HeartGold and SoulSilver, Pokémon that followed you around. I MEAN COME ON! Everyone who has played a Pokémon game has thought, "Hmph, all these NPCs have Pokémon follow them around, why can't I?" It can't be that ridiculous to do either, you've already done it twice! Once in Generation 4, with ALL Pokémon, and then the origin, Generation 1, Pokémon Yellow where frikkin' Pikachu followed you around!
(Thanks Bulbapedia...adorable)It's not like it's not even in the other games! It's a minor feature in Diamond and Pearl, and they even give a shout out to it in Generation 5 with the Mienfoo, and characters who follow you around!
Now then, are you done ranting yet Caleb?
No, not yet, internet! In fact, I may never be done! But...for now let's say that I am. Catch you later internet!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)