I'm losing interest in Pokemon games...

[Claude C Kenny]

If you can take your nostalgia glasses off, you would understand why I claim that Gen I sucks (terrible balance, glitch-infested (even Smogon admitted that Red, Blue, and Yellow are among some of the glitchiest games ever made)). None of the issues that any latter generation had were nearly as bad.

Sure the 2000s and onward have a bunch of lows, but the 80s and 90s also have a good number of lows that are overlooked.

so all of a sudden glitches make a game bad? would you be saying the same thing if this topic was about Ocarina of Time or Super Mario 64? what about games that have major sequence breaking, like Super Metroid? what regard do you hold to that?

Glitches, for the most part, only occur if you do something to make them occur. I have yet to encounter any glitch that occurs during regular gameplay. and most are so obscure (mew glitch, missingno, etc.) that you have to actually go through specific steps to make them occur. steps you most likely wouldn't even know about if it weren't for the internet.

and, I never said Black and White would be the best Gen. I said they had potential to be better than the original. which is the one you're bashing for being outdated.

[Nightmare]

Hey, my childhood had no Pokemon so I can't have nostalgia glasses on, and I think Gen 1 is good.

[dondon151]

If you can take your nostalgia glasses off, you would understand why I claim that Gen I sucks (terrible balance, glitch-infested (even Smogon admitted that Red, Blue, and Yellow are among some of the glitchiest games ever made)). None of the issues that any latter generation had were nearly as bad.

Gen I was the best because of its glitches and poor balance. It also has the best music of any Pokemon game, in my opinion.

[Raven]

Back in the day, it only took me 5 minutes play of my friend's Red to realise that I needed it in my gaming life.

I more than likely will get Black or White (whichever version has the black legendary obtainable in it), but will more than likely not bother with it after I complete the League or some high point that comes after the E4, if anything.

[Florete]

or everyone else thinks I'm stupid for thoroughly disliking them.

For some reason I feel like applauding you for adding this line.

If you can take your nostalgia glasses off, you would understand why I claim that Gen I sucks (terrible balance, glitch-infested (even Smogon admitted that Red, Blue, and Yellow are among some of the glitchiest games ever made)). None of the issues that any latter generation had were nearly as bad.

Sure the 2000s and onward have a bunch of lows, but the 80s and 90s also have a good number of lows that are overlooked.

This is why I agreed. I mean, I love getting Mew before Misty, but...

Terrible balance and glitches don't make a game bad.

They do make it very poorly designed. Gen 1 was, as stated, revolutionary when it came out, but I don't think it holds up to the test of time like some other old, even older games probably do.

Gen I was the best because of its glitches and poor balance. It also has the best music of any Pokemon game, in my opinion.

How does that make sense? And music is subjective, probably also with a nostalgia factor for Gen 1 in particular.

[Esau of Isaac]

If you can take your nostalgia glasses off, you would understand why I claim that Gen I sucks (terrible balance, glitch-infested (even Smogon admitted that Red, Blue, and Yellow are among some of the glitchiest games ever made)). None of the issues that any latter generation had were nearly as bad.

Sure the 2000s and onward have a bunch of lows, but the 80s and 90s also have a good number of lows that are overlooked.

Uh, terrible balance? Relative to what? I never at any point in all the hundreds of hours I wasted away as a kid on the game ran into any glitch that wasn't done through clear steps.

The games were a well-made masterpiece, revolutionary titles that further helped consolidate Nintendo's supremacy in the handheld realm. Claiming that the first generation of Pokemon games were sub-par by any means is so far beyond idiotic that I'm halfway convinced you may not actually have been on the planet Earth prior to the turn of the century.

[Anouleth]

Yeah, the first generation is pretty timeless. The later games are way too... scripted. I hate the way that you're kind of railroaded into encountering the legendary pokemon as part of the 'plot', while when you found legendary pokemon in Gen 1, it felt unexpected and special.

[Florete]

Yeah, the first generation is pretty timeless. The later games are way too... scripted. I hate the way that you're kind of railroaded into encountering the legendary pokemon as part of the 'plot', while when you found legendary pokemon in Gen 1, it felt unexpected and special.

At the same time, encountering them on the way gives actual meaning to their existence. Gen 1 is just like "legendaries, cool." With the word legendary attached, I'd think their existence should have some meaning.

Plus, it's not like later games had a shortage of extra legendaries. Gen 2 didn't have much more, but gen 3 had the Regis and Rayquaza, or on Emerald, Kyogre and Groundon. Gen 4...Geez, I got annoyed at how many extra legendaries were in that one.

The thing with Gen 1 is that each Gen since has improved on the game structure without really taking any steps back. They may seem small, but things Running Shoes, registering a key item, and multiple bag pockets go a long way to making the games flow so much better.

[dondon151]

How does that make sense?

The same way that FE5 is the best because of its flaws.

Also, the Pokemon sprites. Say what you will about the RBG sprites looking stupid, but the scary Pokemon were actually scary.

And music is subjective, probably also with a nostalgia factor for Gen 1 in particular.

I don't think any of the subsequent Pokemon games have been able to recreate the appropriate atmosphere with their music. Every piece of background music in gen I was fitted perfectly to the game. Lavender Town, Route 1, and the trainer battle theme come to mind.

Edited February 27, 2011 by dondon151

[Florete]

The same way that FE5 is the best because of its flaws.

So, what, the further you can manipulate it, the better the game is?

Somehow I don't think we'll be coming to an agreement here (and not just because I can barely even bring myself to play FE5).

I don't think any of the subsequent Pokemon games have been able to recreate the appropriate atmosphere with their music. Every piece of background music in gen I was fitted perfectly to the game. Lavender Town, Route 1, and the trainer battle theme come to mind.

Well, I disagree. Gen 3 in particular I thought did a great job. All my favorite Pokemon tracks are easily from there.

Also, the Pokemon sprites. Say what you will about the RBG sprites looking stupid, but the scary Pokemon were actually scary.

There were scary Pokemon 0_o? I was younger than 10 when I played these games and not once did they scare me.

Edited February 27, 2011 by Red Fox of Fire

[Momo]

I uphold that Black and White are the worst games in the main series, not exclusively but most especially in terms of their presenting a world that is consistent and fun to explore... which they doesn't. I was disappointed by multiple locales in Black (I only have Black but I very much doubt I need to argue it's not unreasonable to extend my opinions in this regard to White despite my not having played it) that should have been exciting, interesting, or fun, but were instead vapid technical demonstrations. If you're concerned about a waning interest in the series, my personal suggestion would be to return to the older games, whichever you may have most enjoyed, and you not overly worry about Black and White unless something really inspires you to get them, or you're only really interested in play with other people, or everyone else thinks I'm stupid for thoroughly disliking them.

ahahahahahahahahahaha

[Anouleth]

At the same time, encountering them on the way gives actual meaning to their existence. Gen 1 is just like "legendaries, cool." With the word legendary attached, I'd think their existence should have some meaning.

But they're still unique and powerful and special. For example, Zapdos/Moltres/Articuno were the only fire/thunder/ice pokemon that were also flying (excluding Charizard).

Plus, it's not like later games had a shortage of extra legendaries. Gen 2 didn't have much more, but gen 3 had the Regis and Rayquaza, or on Emerald, Kyogre and Groundon. Gen 4...Geez, I got annoyed at how many extra legendaries were in that one.

I disliked that as well. There are so many legendaries now, they no longer feel 'special'.

The thing with Gen 1 is that each Gen since has improved on the game structure without really taking any steps back. They may seem small, but things Running Shoes, registering a key item, and multiple bag pockets go a long way to making the games flow so much better.

Yeah, there were a lot of good features added as well. I guess I have a mixed opinion, but I can understand people feeling that Gen. 1 was the best.

[Florete]

But they're still unique and powerful and special. For example, Zapdos/Moltres/Articuno were the only fire/thunder/ice pokemon that were also flying (excluding Charizard).

With the constant addition of new Pokemon, constantly giving new type combinations - and keeping balance - is not always possible (and it's not like all three birds, especially Articuno and Moltres, aren't weak to Rock). Personally, I'll take the new Pokemon. But if you're saying that the way later gens do it makes legendary Pokemon not "special," that I would definitely disagree with. My Lugia and Groudon felt much more special to me because of how I encountered them; I felt it, once again, actually had some meaning.

I disliked that as well. There are so many legendaries now, they no longer feel 'special'.

Yeah, if there's any problem with Gen 4, that's one I'd agree with. Legendaries are cool, but that was overkill.

Yeah, there were a lot of good features added as well. I guess I have a mixed opinion, but I can understand people feeling that Gen. 1 was the best.

Running Shoes just might be my favorite new aspect ever. I love those so much.

[Emeraldfox]

I like how the games improve with each installment. Also, I loved the abundance of legends in gen 4, that's me though.

[riariadne]

Gen 4...Geez, I got annoyed at how many extra legendaries were in that one.

HG/SS didn't have that many. It gives you some and says "You can get the extras if you want, we'll show you and frequently mention the important ones (Lugia/HoOh, Entei, Suicune, Raikou)."

Edited February 27, 2011 by Reinfleche

[Raven]

I've still yet to beat Red in SS. Been training my 'Mons for him.

[Just call me AL]

I've still yet to beat Red in SS. Been training my 'Mons for him.

I figured you'd have 'im beat by now. :/

[Darros]

Terrible balance and glitches don't make a game bad.

Just like FE8! That isnt a bad game!

[Anouleth]

Just like FE8! That isnt a bad game!

FE8 doesn't have any glitches. And every FE has bad balance.

[Darros]

FE8 doesn't have any glitches. And every FE has bad balance.

Dark Magic.

Pierce.

[Florete]

And every FE has bad balance.

I think that depends on how you see it. Obviously, to people like us who dissect the games, it will appear very imbalanced. And some of them are, like 4 and 9 where mounted units just totally dominate. But I think FE10 in particular actually has some pretty good balance with a mix of variety for casual players. Mounted units in general were weakened and given further disadvantages like not being able to climb ledges. Fliers (Haar aside) have mostly mediocre stats and poor availability, or are Jill who get a lot of map penalties tossed at them. Healers are still useful for healing but not much more, unlike FE7 where they promote and start raping shit. Foot units can often be better in combat than mounted units. Laguz gauge (Cat aside) is done pretty well, and while the Royals may look overpowered on paper, their availability limits their actual usefulness. Even Herons now have competition and less availability to make their skills useful.

Just because we can make a tier list and see how much better than Lyre Haar is doesn't mean the game is poorly balanced, it just means it isn't perfectly balanced, which is necessary to also include variety, which attracts more players.

[Anouleth]

I think that depends on how you see it. Obviously, to people like us who dissect the games, it will appear very imbalanced. And some of them are, like 4 and 9 where mounted units just totally dominate. But I think FE10 in particular actually has some pretty good balance with a mix of variety for casual players. Mounted units in general were weakened and given further disadvantages like not being able to climb ledges. Fliers (Haar aside) have mostly mediocre stats and poor availability, or are Jill who get a lot of map penalties tossed at them. Healers are still useful for healing but not much more, unlike FE7 where they promote and start raping shit. Foot units can often be better in combat than mounted units. Laguz gauge (Cat aside) is done pretty well, and while the Royals may look overpowered on paper, their availability limits their actual usefulness. Even Herons now have competition and less availability to make their skills useful.

Just because we can make a tier list and see how much better than Lyre Haar is doesn't mean the game is poorly balanced, it just means it isn't perfectly balanced, which is necessary to also include variety, which attracts more players.

I'm not saying that lack of balance is a bad thing. I love the wide variety of characters that Fire Emblem has to offer, and it would be much less interesting if they insisted on making every unit equally good. I understand that even the most awful characters like Fiona or Wendy still have their fans. But I think that there is a big lack of balance in FE, even FE10. Even if the average player does not have the experience or the will to notice it, that doesn't change the fact that the game is unbalanced.

[Florete]

I'm not saying that lack of balance is a bad thing. I love the wide variety of characters that Fire Emblem has to offer, and it would be much less interesting if they insisted on making every unit equally good. I understand that even the most awful characters like Fiona or Wendy still have their fans. But I think that there is a big lack of balance in FE, even FE10. Even if the average player does not have the experience or the will to notice it, that doesn't change the fact that the game is unbalanced.

I wasn't saying lack of balance is a bad thing. I was saying they don't all have bad balance, especially when you consider perfect balance is probably impossible.

[Anouleth]

I wasn't saying lack of balance is a bad thing.

And I wasn't saying that you were saying that :P

I was saying they don't all have bad balance, especially when you consider perfect balance is probably impossible.

They could all be a lot more balanced with not a lot of changes. Characters like Meg, Danved, Makalov, and Ilyana are almost obviously bad.

[Tangerine]

If you guys think no FE game is perfectly balanced, you have not played FE5! I am constantly impressed by how little luck matters in comparison to tactical skill and strategy. The characters are all perfectly balanced and equal as well, but they all have different functions that make up their usefulness!

What an amazingly balanced game, it is too bad they were never able to replicate it.