BasilZero said: Its free for 30 days which ends in March. But after Feb you have to pay $5 to get Celebi until September :P

Lol, I'm cheap, so I'm going to do everything I want for Bank is one fell swoop so I get it for free, sorry Ninty :(

I haven't played Pokemon since they went beyond 151. After catching all 151 Ash found out there's another 600 out there and said "Fuck this shit"

Oak: BUT ASH you need to catch them all.....AGAIN!

I just go over the pokemon list for kikz. Laugh my ass off when I see something like Compy, a computer type pokemon. Shaped like a laptop. -_-

PhantomLink said: Einsam_Delphin said: Have you played with the online components yet? Only Wonder Trade and GTS. Wonder Trade is really fun, I have traded a lot of Trapinch and got lot of new pokemons that I didn't have. I also tried I few battles with random people but my only competitive pokemon is Flygon so I got my ass kicked. By the way, seeing your avatar reminds me of something I forgot while writing the OP. Since Gen 3 I´ve seen a few  pokemons resembling Pikachu (Electric Rodents) but they are not part of the advertising campaign or they are somehow useless in the game. Wouldn't be a good idea to promote those pokemos? (assumig that Pikachu is still popular among kids). And pokemon is all about gameplay isn't? Strategy, collecting and the adventure feeling are all part of the gameplay, I couldn't care less about the stupid story. Edit: Read IIIIITHE1IIIII last post after posting. Lets stop it right there, discussing what gameplay is in a pokemon game is not the purpose of this thread.

Eh, there's no reason for them to be promoted more than any other Pokemon. Pikachu is already their mascot, and is the most relevant Pokemon in the show. As for gameplay, I'm not discussing what Pokemon's gameplay is, rather I'm telling him what gameplay is. The only things in a game that aren't gameplay are visuals and sounds. But yeah, still not what this thread is about, so that's the last thing I'll say on the matter!

fps_d0minat0r said: Ive given it plenty of chances, I just cant figure out whats so good about the gameplay.

I'm an RPG fan and I don't like it.  Most people who like Pokemon have played less than 10 RPGs in their life, half of them being Pokemon titles.  So they're like, "Hey.  Pokemon is the fifth best RPG I've played.  Such a great series!"

It's just ironic how they praise how deep the gameplay is, yet the "deep strategy" is worthless in the single player when you can use the same six Pokemon you acquire and have no problem going through the game and decimating every opponent you come across without using the "deep strategy." 

Those who keep playing after the single player waste hours on creating a good team, and then fight with that team a couple times, then waste hours on creating another team.  Pretty much people wasting time grinding or setting up a perfect party more than they're competing against one another.

kupomogli said: fps_d0minat0r said: Ive given it plenty of chances, I just cant figure out whats so good about the gameplay. I'm an RPG fan and I don't like it.  Most people who like Pokemon have played less than 10 RPGs in their life, half of them being Pokemon titles.  So they're like, "Hey.  Pokemon is the fifth best RPG I've played.  Such a great series!" It's just ironic how they praise how deep the gameplay is, yet the "deep strategy" is worthless in the single player when you can use the same six Pokemon you acquire and have no problem going through the game and decimating every opponent you come across without using the "deep strategy."  Those who keep playing after the single player waste hours on creating a good team, and then fight with that team a couple times, then waste hours on creating another team.  Pretty much people wasting time grinding or setting up a perfect party more than they're competing against one another.

i have played over 50 rpgs, yet pokemon is in my top 5 :p

tbone51 said: kupomogli said: fps_d0minat0r said: Ive given it plenty of chances, I just cant figure out whats so good about the gameplay. I'm an RPG fan and I don't like it.  Most people who like Pokemon have played less than 10 RPGs in their life, half of them being Pokemon titles.  So they're like, "Hey.  Pokemon is the fifth best RPG I've played.  Such a great series!" It's just ironic how they praise how deep the gameplay is, yet the "deep strategy" is worthless in the single player when you can use the same six Pokemon you acquire and have no problem going through the game and decimating every opponent you come across without using the "deep strategy."  Those who keep playing after the single player waste hours on creating a good team, and then fight with that team a couple times, then waste hours on creating another team.  Pretty much people wasting time grinding or setting up a perfect party more than they're competing against one another. i have played over 50 rpgs, yet pokemon is in my top 5 :p

Well.  I know your a Pokemon fan and there are 30+ different Pokemon RPGs.  So 20 isn't that much :P.

*edit*

I assume the rest are Fire Emblem something or other, Final Fantasy, and Golden Sun.

I'm only kidding.  I don't know what RPGs you guys may have played.  I just think Pokemon is pretty poor.

kupomogli said: tbone51 said: kupomogli said: fps_d0minat0r said: Ive given it plenty of chances, I just cant figure out whats so good about the gameplay. I'm an RPG fan and I don't like it.  Most people who like Pokemon have played less than 10 RPGs in their life, half of them being Pokemon titles.  So they're like, "Hey.  Pokemon is the fifth best RPG I've played.  Such a great series!" It's just ironic how they praise how deep the gameplay is, yet the "deep strategy" is worthless in the single player when you can use the same six Pokemon you acquire and have no problem going through the game and decimating every opponent you come across without using the "deep strategy."  Those who keep playing after the single player waste hours on creating a good team, and then fight with that team a couple times, then waste hours on creating another team.  Pretty much people wasting time grinding or setting up a perfect party more than they're competing against one another. i have played over 50 rpgs, yet pokemon is in my top 5 :p Well.  I know your a Pokemon fan and there are 30+ different Pokemon RPGs.  So 20 isn't that much :P. *edit* I assume the rest are Fire Emblem something or other, Final Fantasy, and Golden Sun. I'm only kidding.  I don't know what RPGs you guys may have played.  I just think Pokemon is pretty poor.

Totally disagree with pokemon, but thats opinionated so we'll leave it at that :)

Chrono Trigger+SM RPG were top notch on SNES, FFX was cool to me, FE is amazing (my favorite being GCN+Wii version), and many more. Yes pokemon = around 13-15 games but i played enough SRPG to kno the difference :)

kupomogli said: fps_d0minat0r said: Ive given it plenty of chances, I just cant figure out whats so good about the gameplay. I'm an RPG fan and I don't like it.  Most people who like Pokemon have played less than 10 RPGs in their life, half of them being Pokemon titles.  So they're like, "Hey.  Pokemon is the fifth best RPG I've played.  Such a great series!" It's just ironic how they praise how deep the gameplay is, yet the "deep strategy" is worthless in the single player when you can use the same six Pokemon you acquire and have no problem going through the game and decimating every opponent you come across without using the "deep strategy."  Those who keep playing after the single player waste hours on creating a good team, and then fight with that team a couple times, then waste hours on creating another team.  Pretty much people wasting time grinding or setting up a perfect party more than they're competing against one another.

Mmm, such delicious hateraid! ^_^

Einsam_Delphin said: PhantomLink said: Einsam_Delphin said: Have you played with the online components yet? Only Wonder Trade and GTS. Wonder Trade is really fun, I have traded a lot of Trapinch and got lot of new pokemons that I didn't have. I also tried I few battles with random people but my only competitive pokemon is Flygon so I got my ass kicked. By the way, seeing your avatar reminds me of something I forgot while writing the OP. Since Gen 3 I´ve seen a few  pokemons resembling Pikachu (Electric Rodents) but they are not part of the advertising campaign or they are somehow useless in the game. Wouldn't be a good idea to promote those pokemos? (assumig that Pikachu is still popular among kids). And pokemon is all about gameplay isn't? Strategy, collecting and the adventure feeling are all part of the gameplay, I couldn't care less about the stupid story. Edit: Read IIIIITHE1IIIII last post after posting. Lets stop it right there, discussing what gameplay is in a pokemon game is not the purpose of this thread. Eh, there's no reason for them to be promoted more than any other Pokemon. Pikachu is already their mascot, and is the most relevant Pokemon in the show. As for gameplay, I'm not discussing what Pokemon's gameplay is, rather I'm telling him what gameplay is. The only things in a game that aren't gameplay are visuals and sounds. But yeah, still not what this thread is about, so that's the last thing I'll say on the matter!

Well they have not tried to promote other pokemos and seeing they resemblance to Pikachi it might help to drive some sales, I remember back in the third Gen when I saw Minum and Plusle I was excited but then came dissapointment as didn't found them useful. I could be a positive impact in sales, negative or do nothing. It was just an idea that pop into my head :P .

@kupomogli

The same thing could be said of many games that have single player and multiplayer, seriously man.

And what about other RPGs?  You can use the same 3 characters in Final Fantasy XII a beat the game without any kind of strategy (Not bashing, FFXII is one of my favorites RPG) Golden Sun series offer a Djinn system in which you can assign a certain number of Djinn to the main characters, different combinations of Djinn enable different classes, but in the same way you can beat the game with the default combination of Djinn for each character. Even if you can beat the two games I mentioned without strategy, they offer many posibbilities in party creation.

PhantomLink said: @kupomogli The same thing could be said of many games that have single player and multiplayer, seriously man. And what about other RPGs?  You can use the same 3 characters in Final Fantasy XII a beat the game without any kind of strategy (Not bashing, FFXII is one of my favorites RPG) Golden Sun series offer a Djinn system in which you can assign a certain number of Djinn to the main characters, different combinations of Djinn enable different classes, but in the same way you can beat the game with the default combination of Djinn for each character. Even if you can beat the two games I mentioned without strategy, they offer many posibbilities in party creation.

It feels a lot different in Pokemon.  In Pokemon, you'll be completing entire gyms in single player with one or two Pokemon.  If you can one shot every gym members Pokemon with an attack that does normal damage there's absolutely no need to bother to change party members to finish the battle any faster.  By changing members and attempting to use any strategy, you're actually taking longer to defeat your opponent in Pokemon.  In Pokemon the attacks even when animations are off take a long time, changing out your Pokemon takes a long time.  Literally everything is slow in Pokemon and when the difficulty is as easy as it is, it makes for a much worse experience.  If they're going to have some brain dead difficulty atleast speed up the battles.     

For your question in comparison.  Putting  forth some additional strategy in your average RPG is actually benefitting you to finish it more quickly.  Some games may not require you to do so and can be completed regardless, but they add a noticeable benefit by doing so.  Very rarely is there an RPG that you go to new areas and one shot every opponent you come across.