Goliath100 said:
frobalt said:
...games requiring multi-player, Sim City and Titanfall got a lot of back-lash. Not the exact same situation
So you do understand that both those games don't work as examples because of fundamental differences. Then way do you bring them up?
If anything, you should find an example of a game that has a single player mode that can only be 100% completed through multiple instances of the game in a similar fashion to pokémon's trading system.
Why did you not try to do that? Is it because the best example destroy your argument? Because the best counterpoint to Pokemon I can come up with is World of Warcraft, a MMO.
Both are continuous (WoW being an MMORPG never truly ends, and Pokemon has a "post-game" and all pokemon can be transferred the next instalment) with unclear lines between what's single- and multiplayer (both games has preparations for multiplayer done in single player). But most importantly: Both has communication with other people as a gameplay mechanics. What you are asking for is the equivalent of a to see all the multiplayer content in a 100% single player WoW. It's ridiculous.
This post is just ridiculous.
First of all, so everyone knows, Goliath100 felt the need to PM me saying:
Goliath100 said:
"I'm not referring to a particular game."
Don't care if you had a game in mind, you will still give a named example.
My response was:
Me said:
Will I? Who the hell do you think you are to issue demands like that?
If anything, you should find an example of a game that has a single player mode that can only be 100% completed through multiple instances of the game in a similar fashion to pokémon's trading system.
Can't imagine a lot of games do that.
If you're just going to keep saying 'Named example' without actually tackling the point, then there's no point talking to you.
However, in the case of games requiring multi-player, Sim City and Titanfall got a lot of back-lash. Not the exact same situation, but shows that gamers generally don't like feeling forced to play multi-player.
P.S. If you want to make demands like that, have the balls to do it in the thread instead of only by PM.
Credit where credit's due: He seems to have at least listened to the last line of the message. Just a shame he decided to take it out of context.
My suggestion for improving pokémon games was essentially along the lines of: Make it possible to complete 100% without requiring other people or a second copy.
My argument for this was that no other game would be able to get away with what pokémon has in regards to requiring multiple copies and, as someone pointed out, attending specific events, just to get 100% completion.
Pokémon is a game about collecting creatures and filling an encyclopedia based on them. So, to complete a Pokémon game 100%, you have to catch 'em all (They should make that the catch phrase or something).
Goliath's only argument against this is 'Give a named example'. Hell, he felt so strongly about this that he decided to PM me demanding that I provide a named example.
My response was to challenge him to find a game that requires multi-player to 100% complete a single player aspect.
I then went on to provide examples of games that forced multi-player which pissed a lot of people off. This is the part he took out of context - Notice the sentence is "However, in the case of games requiring multi-player, Sim City and Titanfall got a lot of back-lash."
Goliath misquoted this to make out like I was comparing Sim City and Titanfall to Pokémon, when in actual fact my point is that gamers hate being forced in to multi-player.
Now that the readers of this thread are up-to-date with the information, let's tackle the post:
First of all, Goliath, you questioned why I brought up those 2 games as they are fundamentally different to Pokémon and then went and directly compared it to World of Warcraft. Let me just say, that takes guts, that really does.
In no way are Pokémon and World of Warcraft comparable. Sure, they're both RPGs, but they are so different you should be ashamed of yourself for even using that argument.
All I'm going to say on this one is that WoW is a multi-player focused game, so you'd expect to need other players to progress as much as possible. Pokémon is a single player game that has a couple (Trading and battling) of multi-player aspects as extra features. This completely invalidates your argument, and if you can't see why then try re-reading it.
I'm going to reiterate what I said in the PM: Find another game that requires multi-player aspects to complete 100% that didn't get any backlash at all and is also a popular game. Just to make it easier for you, I'm not going to class achievements as required to 100% complete a game, as achievements are more like a meta game.
AntiChri5 has provided a useful named example for me, which I have quoted below. Maybe now you'll stop demanding I name a game. (If you come out with 'But you didn't name that game someone else did' then there's no point trying to have a rational argument with you)
AntiChri5 said:
It's already happened. Mass Effect 3 required that you play the multiplayer in order to get one of the endings for singlelayer. MASSIVE hate backlash. They ended up having to undo it in a patch.
I can't help but wonder though: Why are you defending pokémon so rabidly? Do you really think it's a good game design decision to require multi-player like this?
Or did you once catch all the pokémon and hate the idea of it being made easier for people in future?
I mean, it's a terrible game design choice making it near impossible for the vast majority of people to finish the pokédex legitimately with just 1 copy of the game.
I mean, it's bad enough that Nintendo get away with making 3 versions of the same game with slight variations each generation, but it's becoming worse all the time as you require more of the games to be able to complete the pokédex each time; These days you require past generations to get a lot of pokémon to the most recent generation.
How many game franchises are there out there that not only require access (Whether through buying yourself or using another person) to another version of it in order to 100% complete a single player aspect? That's not rhetorical, I want you to find out, since you're defending pokémon for doing it: How many other games do it?
Not only that, but how many other games require previous versions to 100% complete the current version? Once again this is a serious question.