By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
mysteryman on 27 February 2014
Edit Thread
Zod95 said:
mysteryman aka John Lucas said:

The core Pokemon game series has remained turn-based since the beginning. If you want to complain about it remaining a turn-based RPG, that's a completely different argument to make (keep in mind that spinoff series have explored other genres and gameplay mechanics). But your argument that the core pokemon series is bad because it isn't using action-based RPG elements, when it is a turn-based RPG, is completely asinine.

I have never said Pokémon is bad. I just said that it could be much deeper than what it is. And, despite the huge profits Nintendo made with the IP, they've never tried to accomplish such an achievement. I find it sad for Pokémon fans.

 

mysteryman aka John Lucas said:

You've used the example before that compiling real-life rosters for photo-realistic soccer games requires effort. Besides photographing players faces, a simple parametric change of skin colour, height and weight/width could be used. I find it difficult to believe that you would consider that an accomplishment, but modeling over 700 unique 3D models with unique attack animations to be a simple task. It just smells fishy.

You find it difficult because you fail to understand that such football games comprise thousands of players while Pokémon only comprises hundreds of characters. You also fail to understand that the 3DS detail is nothing compared to the PS3/X360 detail. You also fail to understand that turn-based gameplay and pre-made animations are much easier to create than real-time gameplay and stochastic animations.

 

mysteryman aka John Lucas said:

Firstly I never said that you alluded to artistic creation not being valuable, but instead "not valuable, difficult, requiring 'eagle-eye' or thorough work" especially in comparison to photo-realism. Here are some quotes copied from the UNITY thread as I am unable to quote directly -  http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=166018&page=1

What is the difference between "not being valuable" and "not valuable"? You contradict yourself.

Hmmm, mysteryman aka John Lucas? Since when did quoting me do that? Weird.

I see your entire argumentative repertoire now: make outlandish statements, when countered simply ask for a multitude of direct quotes that state such counters (or a list of requirements), then move the goal posts for each quote (/requirement). Well done.

Every game could be made deeper. One could argue that changing the core franchise so drastically could actually be detrimental and would also destroy the interconnectivity between previous titles that the series is famous for. As mentioned, spinoffs have explored a large variety of different genres and gameplay mechanics. Pokemon fans get their fill of many combinations of those.

You missed my point completely. Thousands of different soccer players can simply employ the same model with several parameters changed (height, weight, complexion etc.) and a new face. This is much simpler than 700 completely different models, all requiring unique animations. The parametric soccer models all use the same animation set. You can downplay the performance of the 3DS all you want, the 3D Pokemon models look and move great (epsecially in 3D :) ).

I never said there was a difference between "not being valuable" and "not valuable", but instead between "not being valuable" and "not valuable, difficult, requiring 'eagle-eye' or thorough work". I can't tell if you are actively trying to omit the rest of the sentence to make it easier to refute or not. I assume so, as it's been twice in a row now and it fits your form of argumentation.

You also skipped over all of the quotes you requested.