Abedeus said:
will1182 said:
Abedeus said:
I like them all. If they are good.
will1182 said:
I like JRPGs for better stories, bosses, combat (IMO). Also, Pokemon was my entire childhood.
Pokemon has none of those. Combat is as primitive as it can be - choose an attack, item or change character. Story? Go around several towns, defeat 8 people (and dozens between them), get to the top, beat the best guys, sleep on cash. Oh, and gotta catch them all. 450+, counting. Bosses? Yeah....
It doesn't matter, Pokemon still is classified as a JRPG, what with the linear story and turn based combat. And it's made by the Japanese.
Yeah, Pokemon has no good stories and bosses. But you obviously haven't played any since Red and Blue, since the combat sysytem as eveolved into one of the deepest around. It may appear simple, but the sheer amount of statistics/type match ups/strategies/training techniques that one can use for a team is almost infinite.
Just two days ago I finished Silver for the 4th or so time. All my Pokemon were between 50-60. And if you remember correctly, the final boss has 6 Pokemons, all 75 to 81. I defeated him despite being at least 20 or 25 levels lower. How? The weakness/advantage system is so easy to exploit... Also item system.
You want deep jRPG for handheld? Play Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor. There's a really strategic gameplay in that game, not in Pokemon. In Pokemon, all you have to do is remember which elements beat which monsters, then exploit the hell out of it. Especially since fights 1 vs 1 or 2 vs 2 are so easy... In Shin Megami, there are less elements, there are Resistances, Drains, Weaknesses, Immunities. 4 options instead of 2. Also, different enemies might have different skills and different passive abilities. Just because 2 monsters have the same name doesn't mean they can be defeated in the same way.
Also, I played Ruby (or Sapphire, I don't recall correctly), but the effort to remember all 353 or so Pokemon was not worth my time.
Dude...Gold and Silver was
ten years ago. They didn't even have each move assigned to physical/special yet. Look at the right column of this page: http://www.serebii.net/diamondpearl/
In the latest generation, there are 493 Pokemon, 467 different attacks (each with a separate physical/special assignment), dozens of special abilities, EV's, IV's, an untold number of ways to cross-breed for the perfect Pokemon, special move combinations that make for elaborate strategies...
Of course the core is still the type matchups, but there are so many possible counter-strategies. And by the way, this is all talking about playing with other people competitively, not playing with the piss-easy AI. There is such a thing as professional battles, and those people need to know every strategy and counter-strategy inside-out.
They've added a
shitload of new strategic elements over 10 years. I'm not saying it's the most strategic system out there (because it isn't), but to say Pokemon doesn't involve strategy is just ignorant. And to use a ten year old game as an example (Gold and Silver) is just as ignorant.
Sorry, I know you didn't want a lesson here, but there is absolutely no way that I can agree with you.
