^ Exactly why I'm not interested. Also, a console version of this would break record sales but they still keep it to hand-held devices. I remember thinking Pokemon in 3D would be great fun, but I don't think it will happen in the near future.
Printable View
^ Exactly why I'm not interested. Also, a console version of this would break record sales but they still keep it to hand-held devices. I remember thinking Pokemon in 3D would be great fun, but I don't think it will happen in the near future.
You know, for all the people calling Square money-grabbers for their spinoff games, at least they don't release two near-identical games for every release, the only difference between the games being some monsters.
To collect them all, I think the point was more 'connect with friends and trade between the two versions', and not 'you need to buy both games to collect them all'. Besides, collecting is one aspect of the game-- battling is another thing, and it's a lot deeper than you'd expect for a game that people of all ages can enjoy. The fact that 4th gen on has WiFi capabilities makes collecting and battling a whole lot more fun-- as well as being a lot easier than having to find friends locally who a) have a gameboy, b) have the opposite game, c) have a link cable, and d) have the Pokémon you want. Now you can do just that with anyone with a wireless connection around the world!
While all good and valid points, the catch phrase of the series is "Gotta Catch 'Em All."Quote:
Originally Posted by Momiji
And even with all those ways of connection, any other game that didn't come with all the necessary functions to beat it in the same game would bomb.
And I'll again pose the question: If Square Enix were to release two near-identical games - one of which had, say, half of the ultimate weapons, and the other which had the other half - would they or would they not be the biggest money grabbers the world has ever seen? And that's not even suggesting that Square Enix would require you to collect things from all the previous FF installments in order to get them on the latest game. For your argument's sake, we'll say trading is an option. But even then, it's still a joke and SE would be lambasted for such an idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Momiji
Pokémon, to me, is nothing short of the biggest money grabbing excercise in gaming history. Not that I don't enjoy the games, but I don't enjoy the newer ones much by comparison because I don't manage to get even half of the actual number of Pokémon in a single game these days because I have to "collect them all" - as in, collect all the games.
You shouldn't need to trade.
There's a big difference between a game that is entirely single-player and a game whose most important facets are very multiplayer friendly, though-- not to mention that Final Fantasy is mostly for stationary consoles, not portable handhelds. If S-E were to make a two-version game with different ultimate weapons that one would have to trade to get, they wouldn't be the biggest money-grabbers the world has ever seen, because what can you do with them beyond that point? It's not like you can compete against each other in any other way-- and even if you could, you'd be limited to ~10 characters who would take turns smacking each other until the other one falls. I'd understand if they would make a multiplayer Tactics game, where you could have any assortment of characters in your party-- with the ability to trade characters with other people, however. As a matter of fact, I'd go out and buy it in a heartbeat. If S-E would make a Tactics game with local/online multiplayer, I think it would sell very well. Otherwise, you're making a connection that isn't as plausible with a normal FF game.
As far as Pokémon goes, one of your main goals is still to smack the opponent 'til they fall, but the number of combinations you can have in your party-- let alone builds and movesets-- are countless, and there's an enormous amount of depth that one could put into their strategy. However, if you don't want to do that, that's fine, too. If you simply want to play the game to completion, fine. If you want to play the game simply for the non-battle competitions in-game, that's fine too. If you want to collect all of them, it'll take more effort, but not as much as it used to, now that it's so much easier to connect with people. That's what makes Pokémon such an accessible game, since it's easy enough for a child to understand and enjoy, yet has enough options and depth for older folks like us to have fun with.
I'm not going to deny that it's the biggest money grabbing exercise in gaming history, but it has to be one of the most genius money grabbing excercises in gaming history as well, because it worked. :p
Actually, I'm pretty sure the biggest one would be MMO's. WoW and more notably FFXI. FFXI was designed with the exact purpose of being a cash cow for SqEx.Quote:
Originally Posted by Momiji
As for Pokemon... one way around it is to use an action replay. Yeah it's "cheating" but you can just make it so you can catch any pokemon you want. That doesn't hurt the game if it's the only code you use, and in fact can make it more fun... starting the game with say, eevee, at level 1.
THE JACKEL
I wouldn't be too sure about that. MMOs aren't as accessible to as many people as Pokémon is, since you must have a decent computer with a good internet connection and be able to enjoy countless hours of grinding. The demographic for MMOs are much more limited. Pokémon, on the other hand, can appeal to any age group, and are much less of a financial investment than MMOs are. Even if you're pressed for cash, it won't take much out of your pocket to go to a secondhand game shop and pick up an old Game Boy and a used copy of Pokémon R/B/Y/G/S/C-- and it doesn't cost a monthly fee to play them, either. There's also the fact that Pokémon has spawned tons of merchandise and an ongoing children's TV show that keeps kids whining for more.Quote:
Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9
You're right when you say MMOs are a huge cash cow, since they are, but I wouldn't be surprised if the fact that they have a much more limited demographic with more limited accessibility holds them back.
MGS's catchphrase is "tactical espionage action". That mean I can't win if I run-n-gun like a mad man with no tactics at all? Left 4 Dead's whole thing was "It's a Zombie Apocalypse. Bring friends." So if I beat the game alone and never play with someone I know I can't beat it? I'm sure we can agree that it would be silly to make either of these claims; I would simply be missing out on certain aspects of the games that the developers wanted me to take advantage of. Catching all Pokemon is not "beating" the game, as there is a contained storyline in the games. It's something you do because you want to, but you're more than welcome to beat the games with three Pokemon. If you feel the need to collect every 'mon (along with event-special ones who know specific moves) than that's your deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by NortherChaosGod
The Megaman Battle Network and Starforce, most "mon" games (Digimon, Metabots, etc.), and the PSP Tactics remake (for some uber equipment) are games I can think of off the top of my head. While none of those were likely multi-million sellers, they still weren't considered bombs I believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by NortherChaosGod
I think making certain party members accessible along with weapons would be a better analogy, but that's just me. I'm also with Momiji on the lack of multiplayer (and strategy in it should it be included) would not make this as successful. There's also the issue of Square Enix not being known for making multiple cartridges for a game; Pokemon has only ever been released this way, and is massively popular for it. Pokemon was originally released in America at the perfect time, when Beanie Babies and such were in full swing and the freaking country was in a collecting mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
Sorry, but removing a key part of a game doesn't make it better. The original games were spawned from Satoshi Tajiri's bug-collecting/battling hobbies, and his fascination with the inclusion of the link cable in the original Game Boy. Good ol' Miyamoto was the one with the whole multiple cartridges thing, and while since it may have become more of a money-grab at the time you have to think that they had no idea how this would be received. The popularity and massive sales numbers [for an original Gameboy game in '96 (Japan)/ '98 (NA)] certainly gave Nintendo a precedent to follow and an understanding that the multiple carts were a key factor in the sales. There is no reason to go back, and they likely aren't sure it would sell as well if they only announced one version.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
:twocents:
Note: I didn't say you shouldn't be able to trade.
Bob, they already made a console version of Pokemon. Pokemon Colloseum and Pokemon XD: Gale of Darkness, for the Gamecube (don't get the Wii's Battle Revolution, it has no story mode). They are, in my opinion, easily the best games in the entire series. They have a far deeper plot, and an entirely different focus than the GBA games. Only very particular Pokemon can be captured, and only one of each (a couple wild Pokemon are availible in XD, and you can trade with the GBA games from either GC game). There are no HMs or Gyms to worry about, instead, the progression is all tied directly do the story. The games are awesome, and I am really looking forward to another sequel.
The big problem that this has that even Pokemon doesn't is the plot connection. Each character in an FF game has storyline and dialogue connections. It would be two entirely seperate games.Quote:
Originally Posted by RaseI think making certain party members accessible along with weapons would be a better analogy, but that's just me. I'm also with Momiji on the lack of multiplayer (and strategy in it should it be included) would not make this as successful. There's also the issue of Square Enix not being known for making multiple cartridges for a game; Pokemon has only ever been released this way, and is massively popular for it. Pokemon was originally released in America at the perfect time, when Beanie Babies and such were in full swing and the freaking country was in a collecting mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loony BoB
A closer analogy would be like FFV or FFT, with different jobs for each game, rather than different characters.
Whoa, don't be hatin' on PBR, man. I liked the lack of a throwaway plot and the ability to battle people online in 3D using my own party from a DS game. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Skyblade
You're kidding me, right? All of the catchphrases deal with in-game events.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rase
Tactical Espionage Action != being sneaky
You do know what those words mean, right? Secondly, no matter how you play, the story doesn't change. That's still what the games are about.
And you know in Left 4 Dead that no matter if you play with other people or not, you're still part of a group in the game?
Admittedly, I haven't played any of those games. Aside from the "mon" games, what's the deal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Rase
Technically, starting with Gen III S/R/E, they no longer use the "Gotta Catch 'Em All" catch phrase on the games.
Because attempting to is bloody obnoxious. HG/SS are pretty solid as far as being able to to obtain all but about 40 pokemon in the titles. With the use of the GTS, obtaining any of those 40 pokemon is also not at all difficult.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Summoner of Leviathan