Print

Author Topic: Pokemon Topic  (Read 368968 times)

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #780 on: April 26, 2011, 04:30:15 PM »
Pokemon in the age of social media sucks.
Fixed, since Pokemon has always required multiplayer to fully complete or even enjoy.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #781 on: April 26, 2011, 05:26:01 PM »
What? Why is that even a bad thing?

You guys have such a warped sense of... good that it continues to blow my mind every single time.

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #782 on: April 26, 2011, 05:29:14 PM »
It's a bad thing because not everyone has friends.

Hence... y'know, the video games.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #783 on: April 26, 2011, 05:33:06 PM »
And we're done here.

« Reply #784 on: April 26, 2011, 05:35:28 PM »
You guys have such a warped sense of... good that it continues to blow my mind every single time.

Why is it "good" to ostracize certain players from a game's features?

In generations I through III, the extent to which multiplayer was required was reasonable. It's been out-of-hand ever since Pokemon went online.

I want a Pokemon game that can be 100%'d without any inter-game functions whatsoever. Locating fellow Pokemon fans IRL is like finding straight people at Starbucks; nigh impossible.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #785 on: April 26, 2011, 05:41:33 PM »
Why is it "good" to ostracize certain players from a game's features?

I'm going to flip this on you and ask why it's bad that extra, bonus content is available to those who exercise the multiplayer aspects of the game? You know, an aspect of the game they've been pushing since the series came out.

I'm not even entirely sure what aspects you're even complaining about, but from your social media comment I assume you predominantly mean the Dream World. I know you hate having to do anything in these games to get the rewards, but just because you don't want to doesn't make it bad design.

I'll concede it's bad for people without friends like Turtlekid, but that's more his problem than the game's.

While I haven't played around with Dream World and Extralink at all yet (I'm not even aware that it's accessible currently) but I like that the games are branching out and offering new features that provide a different experience than the mainline game.

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #786 on: April 26, 2011, 05:52:31 PM »
It's a bad thing because not everyone has friends.

Hence... y'know, the video games.

And it's probably that mentality that makes devs think they have the excuse to not make local multiplayer ifor games with online multiplayer. All gamers are light-fearing shut-ins who don't know anyone in real life so why bother
* BP is still sour about Dead Rising 2 having online-exclusive co-op
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

« Reply #787 on: April 26, 2011, 05:53:37 PM »
extra, bonus content

Good.

to those who exercise the multiplayer aspects of the game

Bad. What if someone like N'ungujkibwe from Somalia or ShadowBrain was hoping to get an event Pokemon?
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #788 on: April 26, 2011, 06:13:03 PM »
Bad. What if someone like N'ungujkibwe from Somalia or ShadowBrain was hoping to get an event Pokemon?

I have a difficult time comprehending this argument. You're suggesting that because some people, a minority of people, don't have access to the internet readily available in their homes that the developers of the game should completely forgo those technologies? Even when it's extra content?

You're making it sound like WiFi is some foreign technology that only the social elite have access to.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2011, 06:14:41 PM by Black Mage »

Turtlekid1

  • Tortuga
« Reply #789 on: April 26, 2011, 06:22:34 PM »
My thoughts on the matter, just to be clear:

I really appreciate Wi-Fi trading and the like, and I personally think that we were much worse off when the only way to find someone to trade your Kadabra with to evolve it was to actually find someone to trade your Kadabra with to evolve it.  That said, they haven't made very good use of Wi-Fi yet.  Only recently have they begun to hold Wi-Fi events for event-only 'mons, and unless something has changed since Platinum, the GTS still only allows you to seek Pokemon you've already seen, which rather defeats the point of the GTS.  I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the 'mons one has already seen can be expected to have already been caught.  Not all, but most.  You also can't customize your search parameters nearly enough for my taste.  You can set what level and gender you want the Pokemon to be, but that's about it, if I recall.  So the big problem at this point is the lack of options.

Or, at least, the big problem with multiplayer functions.

The other glaring problems with the series have already been discussed at length.
"It'll say life is sacred and so is death
but death is life and so we move on"

WarpRattler

  • Paid by the word
« Reply #790 on: April 26, 2011, 06:24:15 PM »
a minority of people
Er, the majority of the US still can't get decent broadband. We've had this discussion before.

Their arguments still suck, though, except for this bit:
I want a Pokemon game that can be 100%'d without any inter-game functions whatsoever.
I'm all for a Pokémon game where 100% completion is possible in single-player but is far easier if you have friends.

ShadowBrain

  • Ridiculously relevant
« Reply #791 on: April 26, 2011, 06:34:26 PM »
All the new Event Pokemon appear to have sucked, so I don't think you have to worry about me. Besides, I can theoretically take my DS to my parents' business and use it--though the router is notoriously finicky even then...
"Mario is your oyster." ~The Chef

« Reply #792 on: April 26, 2011, 06:35:15 PM »
I have a difficult time comprehending this argument. You're suggesting that because some people, a minority of people, don't have access to the internet readily available in their homes that the developers of the game should completely forgo those technologies? Even when it's extra content?

Why are you drawing this unnecessary connection between bonus content and online gameplay? Seeing as all this "extra content" is pre-programmed into the hardware, it should be available to every single person who spent forty dollars on the game -- regardless of multiplayer access.
YYur  waYur n beYur you Yur plusYur instYur an Yur Yur whaYur

BP

  • Beside Pacific
« Reply #793 on: April 26, 2011, 06:56:50 PM »
What about people who spent forty dollars on the game but not two hundred 'n fifty on a DS

I'll agree with you if what you ultimately mean is, we're in an age where paying for the Internet is preposterous and that worldwide free Wi-Fi that doesn't suck should have been a reality when 3G networks were invented, though...
All your dreeeeeeams begiiin to shatterrrrrr~
It's YOUR problem!

Black Mage

  • HP 1018 MP 685
« Reply #794 on: April 26, 2011, 10:39:14 PM »
Er, the majority of the US still can't get decent broadband. We've had this discussion before.

Fair enough, and I don't really want to get into this debate. What I will say is that I think there is merit to assuming people with the disposable income to purchase a Nintendo DS and Pokemon Black/White probably have access in some form to the internet.

Why are you drawing this unnecessary connection between bonus content and online gameplay? Seeing as all this "extra content" is pre-programmed into the hardware, it should be available to every single person who spent forty dollars on the game -- regardless of multiplayer access.

I'm not drawing any conclusion. Much of the bonus content is relegated to or only accessible through online modes.

Look, I'm not arguing that it wouldn't be great if you could access 100% of the content of the game through single player modes. That'd be great, sure.

What I am saying is that is not how it is, and that fact alone doesn't make the extra content we do have bad.  It's not as though the fact that the internet is needed for some modes is hidden from the consumers. Sure, it's unfortunate for people who don't have access to modern conveniences such as the internet, but that's how it is.

I don't think the amount of online content is unreasonable, and quite frankly I'm not surprised that this is what we're complaining about this week.


Print