That would be awesome! Almost the whole internet want this game to be made, but i think even if they make this game there will be people like "afff! it doesnt has this, it doesnt has that..."
We reap what we sow
| Gee-Gee said: That's possible. My personal opinion is that Nintendo's ace is themselves at their best. If things go really bad, they will kick themselves in the butt and we will see some of their great efforts again. It's happened before, it can happen again. |
By all accounts, we're seeing two of their best efforts in years in the form of Mario 3D World and Zelda: ALBW.
I agree their ace is them at their best, but I think, looking at those two games, and Mario Kart 8, and what I dream the next console Zelda is going to be like, etc., I think we're already in the midst of getting just that.
As for the OP's point of the ever-asked-for Pokemon MMO, well, it would of course be a huge thing if they did it. I don't know that they will, and it could always somehow fail to live up to people's expectations. But it would sell a shitload, that's for sure. On the same token, I think if they made a Wii U Animal Crossing (which is very likely, considering there has been one on every console since the GC), but just upgraded the experience and added a LOT more to actually do and places to go, etc., basically just make a much more fleshed out AC world, and make it basically like an MMO, that could be pretty huge too.
kupomogli said:
A video game is the sum of all its parts. I like how people seem to give it a pass despite the fact that each and every 20+ hour single player campaign is absolute shit, and the competitive portion of the game is lying within that single player. It's not good as a competitive game, even in friendly battles between people you know, until you finish the game and make a proper party. The amount of time it takes to set up a decent party turns the game into a time sink. So yeah, it has deep gameplay, but doesn't mean the game itself is any good because most of that deep gameplay is spent doing menial tasks in order to properly participate. Doing menial tasks in an RPG are boring rather than entertaining, it's not like you're trying to think of how to get this many units here by this amount of turns, you literally have an infinite amount of time to do these boring menial tasks. It also doesn't help that choosing and completing a single turn in that competitive setting takes around 20 seconds after the players take their actions, both players, before they can choose their actions again. Incredibly slow paced battle system. So when I say Pokemon sucks, and it does, I'm looking at the entirety of the game and how much time you have to spend to actually get to the enjoying part of the game when you're playing pvp. If you're wasting time and not having fun getting to the good part, then it's not a very good game is it? Final Fantasy 13 would potentially be a great game then because I hear from everyone that it gets good once you're 20 hours in. Should I ignore the remainder of the game where it's not good only because I started having fun at the end? So I'd rather play a single player RPG that may or may not have gameplay that's as deep, because that 20-60 hour play through I'm being entertained the entire way through. Rather than playing an incredibly boring single player portion of a competitive multiplayer RPG to possibly have fun with its incredibly deep gameplay for an incredibly short amount of time. |
I don't care enough about Pokemon to debate you on all the details, but I have spent over 100 hours on Black/White, so some part of me feels obligated to respond.
I agree with you about some of the tedious aspects. Even my favorite game in the series, Crystal (the meatiest single-player experience of them all), suffered from slow menu navigation and battle animations. Though, I believe the DS entries fixed most of the interface issues, and animations can be turned off entirely, which helps speed up the battles. The series could benefit even more with a turbo feature, though, so that players can speed through battle text far more quickly. Fire Emblem: Awakening lets players set a speed for animations, and control it without having to pause the game. I'd love something akin to that.
As for whether or not the game is fun for the first 20 hours, I can't really say. Aside from the earliest entries, I don't think the series offers much of a challenge. Much of my enjoyment came from planning out my own preferred Pokemon team, which as you say, requires a fair bit of tedium in order to achieve. Is that the bad part, or is that part of the fun? Depends on the player, probably. But if it turns you off from the franchise, I completely understand.
3DS Friend Code: 0645 - 5827 - 5788
WayForward Kickstarter is best kickstarter: http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1236620800/shantae-half-genie-hero
You don't make a winning hand out of a single ace.
Yes, Nintendo has plenty of other properties, ensuring there will just about always be a niche audience for their brand, but none of these properties, including Pokemon, are capable of "winning" an entire market, even cumulatively.
Pokemon has a certain, well-established, loyal audience, but realize that the vast majority of new consumers are children. You won't find many teen to 20 somethings who just happen to discover Pokemon and become instant converts. It just doesn't work that way for a children's franchise.
joke thread? I don't see the entire Nintendo company and it's many talented in house devs sitting back and watching GameFreak do all the work while they take notes. Plus if the idea is so great put out a petition (we all know where that's, headed)
NINTENDO
nintendo forever . . .
If it was an ace up their sleeve then they would have done it already. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it's near impossible for the words "Nintendo" and "online" to mean anything good together.
| carlos710 said: This is true and is one of the reasons so many Sony and MS fanboys hate Nintendo. They fear the huge amount of AAA games that they can release by themselves and won't ever enjoy unless they betray Sony/MS |
Funny you say that, Wii had by far the smallest amount of AAA games in this gen
Sure it would sell like hotcakes, but on the other hand, Nintendo is Nintendo and often doesn't make the most obvious decisions to most people.
For the record, they could have made a proper Pokemon RPG for the sales-wise flop named GameCube and they didn't. Why would the make it now for the Wii U.
Game of the year 2017 so far:
5. Resident Evil VII
| Jizz_Beard_thePirate said: I don't know about that... Pokemon + consoles = curse... Seriously, not a single one has been that great so far... There were some that were fun but the handheld versions were leagues better. Not saying Nintendo can't use the power of the tri-force and make one godly ass game but man... Pokemon + consoles never seem to get along very well |
Have gamefreak ever developed Pokemon games on a console? There have yet to be any mainline pokemon games on the consoles, every single one are spin offs. Most of the spin offs on handhelds are crap too, save a few. Not to mention most of the ok console games are dragged down by the fact that they never do what we want.
There is no curse, on the other hand there is no will.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
