Nintendo + Pokemon = Evil Genius

So, Pokemon Diamond & Pearl are coming out in April. I just read that there's a particular Pokemon in that game that you can only get by linking somehow with the Pokemon Ranger game for the DS.

Guess I gotta go buy Pokemon Ranger now.

www.manaphy.com

Manaphy seems to be the Mew/Celebi/Deoxys/Jirachi of Diamond/Pearl (complete with its own movie, also coming out around the time of D/P), except this time it should be a little more accessible to get it properly.

I'm looking forward to playing this game in English. I keep trying to go back to the game I bought while I was in Japan, but the language barrier is pretty big. If I don't play it for a little while, i forget what everyone's moves are, and most of them are new moves so I have no clue what they do :P

I stopped playing after Gold/Silver. The games aren't that amazing, and it's such a money making strategy on suckers. Oh buy this game and that one, and you need this one to get this pokemon, and the other to get this one. If you link to this game you get this other thing... etc.

Not worth it, time or money-wise

THE JACKEL

I'm strictly limited to first generation Pokemon. Beyond that the names of the Pokemon become so utterly confusing that it's not worth the brain area to deal with it.

I'm like you. While I never owned the first gen of Pokemon, I knew all 151 Pokemon and what their major abilities were. After that, even though I have at least 1 game from each generation following, I wouldn't be able to name 80% of them.

Aside from that, Pokemon are actually quality games, which are definitely extended by multiplayer battles and trading. Diamond and Pearl will be online, which expands that exponentially to people who have that access.

There's a lot of extra stuff in D/P as well that I've played, though I can't really describe it accurately.

I have problems understanding what it is people see in Pokemon. Especially what people over the age of 12 sees in Pokemon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

I stopped playing after Gold/Silver.

---

I got Gold for Christmas the year it came out and I wasn't all that impressed with it. It was ok...

Anyway, yeah, I didn't bother with Pokemon after that. Red/Blue/Yellow was cool, though. It was pretty fresh and new at the time.

I guess Pokemon just isn't for everybody. There's a lot of depth to the game(s). I see each new game as more of an expansion pack than a whole new experience.

Pokemon is accessible enough for kids and people who want to play it on the basic 'beat the 8 gyms' level. Because really, Pokemon was made with kids in mind. But there is a heck of a lot more to it than that now, and it's likely something that just isn't to most FF-types taste.

Pokemon has been out for almost 10 years in English. There have been a lot of subtle changes to it, because I'm sure they realize that the kids who played it in '98 are 10 years older now. You can still play it the same way you did 10 years ago, and if you're content with that, then ok. But there are several more in-depth features that you can sink your teeth into.

'Ignorance is bliss' as they say, it's probably better for you to not get into it than to try.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreddz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

I stopped playing after Gold/Silver.

---

---

So did i. imo most the pokemon look stupid and wayyyyyyy to kiddish. i know i know i know its aimed at kids but meh thats just me.

I liked Pokemon Blue and Red when they first came out. I was pretty young then, but they were the bees knees.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ljkkjlcm9

I stopped playing after Gold/Silver. The games aren't that amazing, and it's such a money making strategy on suckers. Oh buy this game and that one, and you need this one to get this pokemon, and the other to get this one. If you link to this game you get this other thing... etc.

Not worth it, time or money-wise

THE JACKAL

---

I loved pokemon silver until I beat it. I played a whole bunch of those games but they really lacked things such as a good script and perhaps a compelling main character.

I personally think that Pokemon is like fighting games, while Guilty Gear XX has one player modes, the meat of the game is via finding another human, and facing off one another.

That said i havent played since gold/silver...just no comp.

There actually is a lot of deep thought involved in Pokémon. If you can look past the child-friendly image of the game, you'll find a really deep and complex game. Sure, the storyline is nothing new, but is the story supposed to be deep in the game? YOU are the main character, after all.

Pokemon offers a lot in terms of strategy, collection, and party freedom, which I like. It also has the wonderful underlying themes of animal cruelty and "my pet can beat the crap out of your pet." What's not to love?

Quote:

---

It also has the wonderful underlying themes of animal cruelty and "my pet can beat the crap out of your pet." What's not to love?

---

:pinkelephant: the pink elephant o.o

Lol sorry xD <3

^Strategy yeah right. The game's battles are basically just a game of paper, rock, scissors. I haven't played them since Silver and Gold either. It got lame after that. Oh and I heard that Pokem,on Ranger got 3's and 4's from almost every game critiquing media.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashley Schovitz

^Strategy yeah right. The game's battles are basically just a game of paper, rock, scissors. I haven't played them since Silver and Gold either. It got lame after that. Oh and I heard that Pokem,on Ranger got 3's and 4's from almost every game critiquing media.

---

A bit more complicated than rock-paper-scissors, actually. The type matchups are easy to learn, yes, but creating a team that can both cover its own weaknesses and exploit another team's weaknesses? That's definitely a challenge.

I liked Gold the best, with the days system making sure I played it pretty much every day. After that, it just got too complicated for me, and I think I grew out of it.

Quote:

---

A bit more complicated than rock-paper-scissors, actually. The type matchups are easy to learn, yes, but creating a team that can both cover its own weaknesses and exploit another team's weaknesses? That's definitely a challenge.

---

I'll agree with Ashley about the first 3 games being more R-P-S than strategy, but what you said here, Void, I agree with, and it actually applies more to the newer Pokemon games (like Ruby and Sapphire). Since, you know, there were Pokemon with two types and all in those games.

Giving some Pokemon two types really changed up the strategy because instead of just being able to switch your Pokemon out after seeing that you have a fire type and your opponent has a water type, you are forced to change strategies accordingly.

The games all about the multiplayer n stuff.