832 replies to this topic

[The Satellite]

Just because a feature is "needed" doesn't mean that its inclusion isn't innovative. There are a lot of people saying that Zelda "needs" certain things in them to become more innovative; does that mean that if they did get included, they wouldn't be innovative? No, not really. Say what you will, but Gen II really added tons of things to shake up the experience. And where you see "filler" in Kanto's inclusion, I see extra content to explore and see how things changed between the games. And comparing HG/SS to OoT 3D is kind of blind; while OoT 3D did very little to change the gameplay experience, HG/SS still changed up a few things and added several other bits of content.

 

So, yes, it was still the most innovative generation, despite what you may think of the games themselves. Though do I think Gen VI can be just as innovative? ... no, because there was far too much in Gen II, but Gen VI still has a chance to be more innovative than the last three generations. Which is, not very. But no one can judge until we play the games for ourselves, so we shall see. I'm hoping they turn out well. Only nine more days...

 

EDIT: I do want to note I'm not criticizing anyone for not liking the games, I just find it difficult to believe that the games can't be considered as innovative as they were.

[Koh]

TS' Post.

This.  Also, to clarify, no one has said Gen 6 isn't bringing ANY innovation, but so far almost everything they've shown has been aesthetics (3D, customization, MegaEvos since its basically a Form Change) or part of the usual new Generation slew (new region, new Pokemon, new trainers, etc.).  The only things that are innovative to the series as a whole, so far, are the new Fairy Type, Horde/Sky Battles, Pokemon Bank, and possibly Pokemon Amie if it isn't specific to just these games, like the Pokemon Following You in HeartGold/Soul Silver was.  I have no idea why they never did that again, but whatever reason they give can't possibly justify it.  Aesthetics are nice and all, but they aren't going to change the way we play the game.  It's like going to a new level and all that happens is the graphics change.  That's not a change in the way the game is actually played, just a change in the look and design.

Edited by Koh, 03 October 2013 - 06:44 PM.

[David]

This.  Also, to clarify, no one has said Gen 6 isn't bringing ANY innovation, but so far almost everything they've shown has been aesthetics (3D, customization, MegaEvos since its basically a Form Change) or part of the usual new Generation slew (new region, new Pokemon, new trainers, etc.).  The only things that are innovative to the series as a whole, so far, are the new Fairy Type, Horde/Sky Battles, Pokemon Bank, and possibly Pokemon Amie if it isn't specific to just these games, like the Pokemon Following You in HeartGold/Soul Silver was.  I have no idea why they never did that again, but whatever reason they give can't possibly justify it.  Aesthetics are nice and all, but they aren't going to change the way we play the game.  It's like going to a new level and all that happens is the graphics change.  That's not a change in the way the game is actually played, just a change in the look and design.

I agree. While this Generation should add more innovation than the previous three generations, Generation II was still far more innovative when compared to what was added since Generation I.

[Shane]

 The only things that are innovative to the series as a whole, so far, are the new Fairy Type, Horde/Sky Battles, Pokemon Bank, and possibly Pokemon Amie

 

Wait, Koh. Are you saying that most of X/Y features are the only innovative features in the series as a whole literally a page after you doubted there was anything innovative compared to Gen II? Sorry, what?

 

Visuals are also notable. It's only mere preference why you dismissed them.

Edited by Shane, 03 October 2013 - 08:43 PM.

[Orithan]

Tons of new stuff =/= innovation in my opinion. Honestly, most of the stuff that was introduced into Gen II was stuff that really should have been in Gen I. The Day/Night cycle, the Gender/Breeding system, categorized bag and berries all should have been in Gen I. And I believe it was possible to introduce them then, if in a rudimentary way, because there was a fair amount of free space left on the GB cartridge. Given how late it was in the GameBoy's lifespan, you would expect Gamefreak to at least try to push the system's limits. If those were in Gen I and Gen II introduced the rest of the new features, I doubt it would have felt much more "innovative" than Gen IV because most of the rest of the stuff were more or less cosmetic or not in the main story or was just lazily shoehorned in (I'm looking at Kanto here). At least Gen IV introduced stuff that wasn't realistically possible on earlier systems, like WiFi and the Underground.

Edited by Orithan, 03 October 2013 - 08:43 PM.

[Shane]

Since when was innovation a rule to make a good game to? Last time I checked, all that matters is enjoying a game.

Edited by Shane, 03 October 2013 - 08:42 PM.

[Koh]

The Underground doesn't count, because it's exclusive to Gen IV.  Things that remain with the series through every game (or at least most of them, such as Day and Night.  Gen III skipped out on that) is what I mean as innovative to the game as a whole.  Abilities from Gen 3, for example.  Perfect addition, adds an extra layer of strategy, and makes sense.  Gen IV brought nothing new to the table, excluding the Special/Physical Split.  Everything else was standard of a new generation; new mons, new trainers, new region, new team, new gym leaders, new champion.  Just cosmetic updates, which again are welcome, but don't make things feel fresh.

 

Innovation isn't a rule when making a game, but if you're trying to bring in both old and new players alike, just spewing out the same exact thing over and over isn't going to work for the old players.  It's why several people have put Pokemon down, because it's refusing to change to some degree.  Like I said, it doesn't need an entire makeover; it doesn't need to become a PostApocalyptic First Person Shooter.  It just needs new ways to play and progress through the games.  I found myself bored through Black and White, simply because of not only the extreme linearity, but because it all felt familiar.  There was no fresh aspect to it.

Edited by Koh, 03 October 2013 - 09:00 PM.

[Moonbread]

Tons of new stuff =/= innovation in my opinion. Honestly, most of the stuff that was introduced into Gen II was stuff that really should have been in Gen I. The Day/Night cycle, the Gender/Breeding system, categorized bag and berries all should have been in Gen I. And I believe it was possible to introduce them then, if in a rudimentary way, because there was a fair amount of free space left on the GB cartridge. Given how late it was in the GameBoy's lifespan, you would expect Gamefreak to at least try to push the system's limits. If those were in Gen I and Gen II introduced the rest of the new features, I doubt it would have felt much more "innovative" than Gen IV because most of the rest of the stuff were more or less cosmetic or not in the main story or was just lazily shoehorned in (I'm looking at Kanto here). At least Gen IV introduced stuff that wasn't realistically possible on earlier systems, like WiFi and the Underground.

You can say they should've been around since Gen I, but back when they were working on Red and Green, they didn't exactly have a point of reference of what the games entirely needed.  It's like arguing that the original Super Mario Bros. should've let you scroll back to the left- it probably just wasn't an idea at the time that would've seemed important (and it wouldn't really matter with how SMB's levels are designed).  Just because they didn't think of it at that point in time doesn't make it any less innovative when they do it a few years later.  That's why sequels exist, that's why series continue- to advance upon ideas.  And when Red and Green were being worked on, they were making the games from the ground up.  They had to invent the idea of Pokemon and how it would play.  To expect them to have done even half the new things introduced in later Gens is just insanity.  It's not just about hardware limitations or how much space was left on the cartridges.  It's about actually having these ideas.

[Shane]

Well if the next big change happens for the next few Pokemon games it will only become the next "over and over again" thing. Fans will be whining why there isn't anything new again. Simple as that. Adding new features into old conventions can work better in some cases.

Edited by Shane, 03 October 2013 - 09:00 PM.

[Koh]

And then they'll have to figure out something from there.  The inevitable shouldn't prevent progression.  Otherwise, we'd never have airplanes.  Obviously, there will continually be unfortunate airplane crashes, but why should we stop making airplanes because of that?

Edited by Koh, 03 October 2013 - 09:05 PM.

[Jared]

There's nothing in the definition of "innovate" saying it has to span across multiple games/etc. Innovation is simply bringing something new to the table that changes the subject. It does NOT mean keeping said subject.

[Shane]

Change can happen. I never stated it couldn't. But asking to refine a whole set of series conventions is pretty much asking the painter to paint a whole house rather than a room, it's a massive leap and that painter might not agree to this idea. It's his job yes, but he still has feelings and thoughts too.

[Koh]

Things that remain with the series through every game (or at least most of them, such as Day and Night.  Gen III skipped out on that) is what I mean as innovative to the game as a whole.

Edited by Koh, 03 October 2013 - 09:33 PM.

[Jared]

That's YOUR definition of innovation. Not the actual one. So stop trying to force your opinions and viewpoints on the people. It's getting damn old.

[Koh]

*sighs*  You aren't reading it properly.  Just take a minute and read it more carefully, there's a reason why I worded it that way.

 

And if that's not enough, think about New Super Mario Bros.  That series started out okay with the first game, then the next releases were basically just rehashes.  Finally, 3D Land comes along and shows us something new, while still being Mario.  Why can't Pokemon do that?  Because they're afraid of stepping out of their comfort zone.  No one messes with Game Freak's cash cow and gets away with it!

Edited by Koh, 03 October 2013 - 09:37 PM.