So then you're agreeing with me. Although you did so in a rather roundabout way. :V
Crow, Emerald gave battle Frontier, with is basically Pokémon Stadium made portable. That's a whole fucking lot of content off the bat. Then there's making Move Tutors mainstream, berries that affect EVs, the ability to get all legendaries, multi-level Gym re-fights, all in addition to the changed gym setup and the extra boss battle. I liked FR/LG, and played that up until Emerald came out, but a lot of the changes that were made to it over the original were just so it could catch up to Gen 3, and give access to Gen 1/2 pokemon without the use of the gamecube games; rather than adding anything revolutionary to gameplay.
I was actually just stating reasons why it was. Forgot about those others those. But wait, didn't the berries decrease the EVs? Oh well, I'm going a bit off subject.
Yep, that's right. The ability to reverse EV growth that you've screwed up is a lifesaver, and it means the Pokémon you used to beat the game can be altered to have competitive builds.
Its too bad the gym re-fights weren't kept for Diamond and Pearl. Did they put those back for Platinum?
am I the only one who thinks EVs, IVs, and natures are stupid?
Without them, two pokemon at the same level would be exactly the same. Which is silly.
Platinum Gym Leaders get a single rematch set, which is better than nothing.
(07-08-2009, 04:02 PM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote: [ -> ]Indeed, by that logic I would consider New Super Mario Brothers better than the original, since it has more content, and improves on the mechanics of the original. The other Mario games aren't direct sequels to it, and can't be compared in the same way (although you can reason which would be the best Mario platformer, you'd have to take other factors in to account).
It's a pretty logical and obvious conclusion, really.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopi...-ever.html
pretty logical and bluntly obvious yes
That would be (looking at the Car analogy) taking 'vintage enthusiasts' in to account. It's also not often a flawless idea to take public opinion or sales as a perfect indicator of an item's quality - it's why self proclaimed gamers often discount modern game sales as being 'good' games - It can only be a theoretic suggestion, but if you were to get someone with gaming skill, but no memory of playing any games, they would naturally prefer the version of a game with more content and better mechanics. It's undeniable.
(07-08-2009, 05:34 PM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote: [ -> ]That would be (looking at the Car analogy) taking 'vintage enthusiasts' in to account. It's also not often a flawless idea to take public opinion or sales as a perfect indicator of an item's quality - it's why self proclaimed gamers often discount modern game sales as being 'good' games - It can only be a theoretic suggestion, but if you were to get someone with gaming skill, but no memory of playing any games, they would naturally prefer the version of a game with more content and better mechanics. It's undeniable.
what
being newer doesn't make a game better.
more content and fancier mechanics are definite pluses, but they aren't the only factor into how good the game is.
Of course they do! Why on earth would two games that are essentially the same - but with one game having more things to do and a more intuitive way in doing them - would have that game be worse?!
(07-08-2009, 05:41 PM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote: [ -> ]Of course they do! Why on earth would two games that are essentially the same - but with one game having more things to do and a more intuitive way in doing them - would have that game be worse?!
well, most remakes are better than the original, sure. FR/LG for example.
But new super mario bros. is not a remake of the original super mario bros
Aside from the fact that the gameplay structure, plot (what little there is), and mechanics are exactly the same. The only thing that's notably different (ignoring cosmetic things like graphics and music which would be unfair to compare) is the level design; and while it's a bit odd or fustrating in places, I wouldn't call it inferior to the level design the NES game had.
(07-08-2009, 05:14 PM)Vipershark Wrote: [ -> ]am I the only one who thinks EVs, IVs, and natures are stupid?
Ivs, evs, and natures give you a more diverse ways of using pokemon, it makes the game much more interesting imo.
(07-08-2009, 05:51 PM)GrooveMan.exe Wrote: [ -> ]Aside from the fact that the gameplay structure, plot (what little there is), and mechanics are exactly the same. The only thing that's notably different (ignoring cosmetic things like graphics and music which would be unfair to compare) is the level design; and while it's a bit odd or fustrating in places, I wouldn't call it inferior to the level design the NES game had.
the plot isn't the same though.
New SMB has some bullshit with baby Bowser and zombie Bowser and shit.
Princess is kidnapped. You go rescue her and tap that ass. NSMB interpreted that slightly differently.
Although I admit that I've drifted off topic. My point on saying that since the only thing that changes between each Pokémon game is the map and the battle mechanics, it stands to reason that each Gen is an improvement over the last.
The only thing that gets in the way of that theory are the Pokémon available. I do concede that the amount of Pokemon available in Ru/Sa was restricted, although they were all hard-coded into the game, but then since DPPt has access to the most Pokémon, that should make it the best incarnation anyway. :V