Am I the only one who thinks Pokemon has gotten progressively worse since Gold/Silver?

Recommended Videos

ItsAPaul

New member
Mar 4, 2009
762
0
0
Am I the only one who thinks bullshit beauty contests and continuously complicating the battle system make the game progressively worse? I still play Silver every now and then, mostly because its the first series of games plus improvements, but I can't stand GBA and newer ones.

Anyone with me?
 

phalanfy

New member
Aug 9, 2008
61
0
0
no, i dont believe anyone has taking it as a serious show/every other media ever invented since gold and silver
 

Nami-Tsuki

New member
Dec 14, 2008
7
0
0
The contests are an extra feature, and completely irrelevant to actually beating the game.

And the battle system isn't that hard, it's a lot of fun to me :D I'm a die-hard Pokemon fan, so that's a good reason for our disagreement.
 

ItsAPaul

New member
Mar 4, 2009
762
0
0
Nami-Tsuki said:
The contests are an extra feature, and completely irrelevant to actually beating the game.

And the battle system isn't that hard, it's a lot of fun to me :D I'm a die-hard Pokemon fan, so that's a good reason for our disagreement.
The originals got me into rpgs and I still hate the new stuff. I understand it, but it seems to be complicated where it isn't necessary. Unlike what companies like Blizzard think, keeping a game balanced for pvp doesn't ensure a good game.
 

The Iron Ninja

New member
Aug 13, 2008
2,868
0
0
How could they have gotten worse?
They're practically the same game.
All that has changed is how good the game itself looks and the pokemon themselves (Which are also, for the most part, re-skins (if you can call a 2d picture a skin) of earlier pokemon).

So if there has been any downgrade, it's due to the fact that all the pokemon after the first 150 are absolute crap.
 

ranger19

New member
Nov 19, 2008
492
0
0
Sort of. I really miss the comparatively simple world where I knew everything and whatnot. (This is mainly coming from playing Red, I only rented Gold and never owned it, though I would LOVE a remake of it.) However, this could be nostalgia speaking, since I played Red so many times that I could do anything there.

I have two main gripes about the newer games: how the game has slowed down, and how the creativity in the Pokemon has been dilluted. Especially in the most recent DS games, the newer graphics make it take a little bit longer to open the door (you have to watch it slide open), and bringing up the menu seems to have a slight lag which is frustrating to have. It doesn't help that getting really good Pokemon in game by EV training is already tedious.

The second is a problem I think most people will agree with. It just feels like there are so many pokemon that just don't seem very much "like" Pokemon. I'm too tired to provide adequate reasoning behind this, but a lot of the newer ones just don't seem to mesh with the old 150/250. (Nosepass? The Regi's even?)

One other slight annoyance is the number of legendaries now. To cartch all the pokemon there are way too many legendaries: the birds, the dogs, the azelfs, the regis, the latis, kyroge and groudon, the other birds from gold and silver.. tons. That's 18 just off the top of my head. 18. Throw in Mew and Mewtwo and that's 20. Really? Legendaries should be way more sparse than this, IMO..

But they have their merits. The battle system has gotten more sophisticated, but in a good way. Having special/physical attacks for every eleemnt was a much needed overhaul, and I think it's generally been pretty good.
 

PumpItUp

Senior Member
Sep 27, 2008
431
0
21
Gold and Silver was the pinnacle of Pokemon. It took what made Red and Blue and improved on it: the enormous world map, access to all 250 pokemon, more awesome legendaries, the split Special stat, and Dark/Steel types. Ruby/Sapphire brought us awesome graphics but also frivolous extras (contests, secret bases) and Diamond/Pearl brought us...Dawn's cool hat.

You have to wonder what the inevitable Pokemon 5 will bring. Will the lengendaries be based on religious figures, cause they're running out of natural and spiritual beings to copy.

Also, what will they call it? They've kinda painted themselves into a corner on this one.

Red/Blue/Yellow (Colors)
Gold/Silver (Precious Metals)
Crystal/Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/Diamond/Pearl (Precious Gems)
Platinum (Precious Metal)

Maybe they'll go back to colors and go with Pokemon Black and Pokemon White.
 

ItsAPaul

New member
Mar 4, 2009
762
0
0
The Iron Ninja said:
How could they have gotten worse?
They're practically the same game.
All that has changed is how good the game itself looks and the pokemon themselves (Which are also, for the most part, re-skins (if you can call a 2d picture a skin) of earlier pokemon).

So if there has been any downgrade, it's due to the fact that all the pokemon after the first 150 are absolute crap.
It's the same, except for unique abilities, the stupid +/- attributes type, changing some special moves to actually go off your attack stat and vice versa, 100 new pokemon every time, so on and so forth.
 

Grampy_bone

New member
Mar 12, 2008
797
0
0
The playability upgrades that came with Ruby/Sapphire were very welcome. I enjoy not having to save my game every time I want to switch PC boxes.

Now if only they could figure out a way to, oh I don't know, "animate" their sprites or something...
 

phar

New member
Jan 29, 2009
643
0
0
Yeah I dont know if its because im older now but red and blue were awesome back in the day.. like trading with people to evolve and stuff.. I dont really have incentive to do much of it with the new ones.. plus I dont know with so many pokemon available its kinda sucky to know how each one evolves and what moves list it will get.

Like with gold i was like wow im so getting a steelix.. but it was impossible and i gave up :(
 

Crystal Cuckoo

New member
Jan 6, 2009
1,072
0
0
I dunno, I really liked Red/Blue/Yellow, and Emerald.
The first generation was what got me into Pokemon, and I as I played Yellow first, I absolutely loved Pikachu, and the three starters.
Crystal was alright, it could have been better, though... I guess they didn't have any decent water pokemon until the 6th gym... Well, no NEW water pokemon. I always catch the next generation pokemon in each version I play, otherwise I'm just playing the same game in a different map.
Finally, I adored Emerald. It was my favourite of them all. Yes, I know it's just a copy-paste version of Sapphire/Ruby with better graphics, but I played Emerald before those games.
The diversity of the landscape was what did it for me. That and the pokemon had some sort of realism, reflecting the environment of where you could catch them. Also, the music was really catchy.
Hated the 4th generation games, though. Those Team Galactic dudes looked like fags with their bowl cuts, and to me, the 3-D environment killed the whole feel of the game.
 

thenuminator

New member
Nov 26, 2008
37
0
0
i dont think it has gotten progressively worse, it just hasn't goten progressively better. its stale. i loved ruby and saphire and played it for hours. dimond thought just didn't have the same staying power because i had done it all before.
 

Ace Jackson

New member
May 15, 2008
156
0
0
ItsAPaul said:
Am I the only one who thinks bullshit beauty contests and continuously complicating the battle system make the game progressively worse? I still play Silver every now and then, mostly because its the first series of games plus improvements, but I can't stand GBA and newer ones.

Anyone with me?
I agree. Of the pokemon games I've played, Gold was my favorite, followed closely by Yellow, which was actually my second game for the gameboy ever. All the ones after that seemed like they were running out of ideas for crap. All the actual pokemon after that seemed lame and basically the same pokemon, just with a nose-job, so no one recognizes it when it comes back into the town they grew up in after leaving to go to college and make a living, but they couldn't hack it in the real world. So, yeah, I agree.
 

Altorin

Jack of No Trades
May 16, 2008
6,976
0
0
pokemon was best when the very notion of a 151st pokemon could corrupt your save file
 

The Rockerfly

New member
Dec 31, 2008
4,649
0
0
I think it got worse after blue/red. I mean how many legendary pokemon are there now? Must be hitting 30.
Bad nintendo, rare means less of them...not fucking 30 of them.
 

Bierkrat

New member
Mar 2, 2009
36
0
0
Altorin said:
pokemon was best when the very notion of a 151st pokemon could corrupt your save file
No, your game didn't get corrupt when you caught the 151st pokemon.
The 151st pokemon is mew, who you could get through a glitch.
The 0th pokemon would corrupt your game, being know as "missingno".

I agree to this statement, I love pokemon blue, silver was very nice too. Ruby was ok and I even played firered, though I didn't really liked it. Ruby was the old red/blue but without the glitches and stuff that made it red and blue...
Never played pearle / diamond, and probably never will.
 

theultimateend

New member
Nov 1, 2007
3,621
0
0
PumpItUp said:
Gold and Silver was the pinnacle of Pokemon. It took what made Red and Blue and improved on it: the enormous world map, access to all 250 pokemon, more awesome legendaries, the split Special stat, and Dark/Steel types. Ruby/Sapphire brought us awesome graphics but also frivolous extras (contests, secret bases) and Diamond/Pearl brought us...Dawn's cool hat.

You have to wonder what the inevitable Pokemon 5 will bring. Will the lengendaries be based on religious figures, cause they're running out of natural and spiritual beings to copy.

Also, what will they call it? They've kinda painted themselves into a corner on this one.

Red/Blue/Yellow (Colors)
Gold/Silver (Precious Metals)
Crystal/Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/Diamond/Pearl (Precious Gems)
Platinum (Precious Metal)

Maybe they'll go back to colors and go with Pokemon Black and Pokemon White.
The legendaries will be side stories.

The goal has been from the beginning to show people the ecology of different environments around the pokemon universe. While doing so they've been progressivgely showing people further and further up the mythological tree legendaries. For instance when I was little I remember reading about Arceus (no pictures mind you). This shit didn't just magically appear, well...ok the images and sprites did but in terms of legendaries they have had a plan for a while.

Frankly it's one of the few long running game titles that I've actually enjoyed consistently. I just find it odd that they keep not making a pokemon MMO...

Although I will give that Gold and Silver had the largest zone and that is a problem.

But yeah now that the creator of all life in the pokemon universe has been released we should just be seeing side story legendaries and dig deeper into the story.

The Rockerfly said:
I think it got worse after blue/red. I mean how many legendary pokemon are there now? Must be hitting 30.
Bad nintendo, rare means less of them...not fucking 30 of them.
There are 30 pokemon that each only have 1 showing in the entire game. That's a problem with gaming these days. People start thinking that if OTHER people have something its no longer rare. Lord knows that's the major bitching on the wow forums. "Whaaaaaaaaaa! Now everyone can do that instance! Whaaaaaaaaaa! I spent 3 years getting ready for that! No fair! You should respect me and never let anyone else do that!"

Legendaries are legendaries because they have backstories, whereas regular pokemon are like deer...they are all over.
 
Oct 19, 2008
642
0
0
Agreed, however i think that Ruby and Sapphire were ok, but not as good as their predecessors. Maybe a remake of gold and silver is in order.