832 replies to this topic

[The Satellite]

Oh yeah, here's hoping the Rivals at least have good battle music. Haven't liked a rival battle theme since Gen II. And I don't really count N, his was okay, not awesome, but okay. I haven't heard any of B2/W2's music but I'm assuming it was mostly similar to B/W, which wasn't awful, so perhaps the music will be fine in X/Y. Definitely hoping they upgrade the music too, because I can't really stand the DS sound quality. Maybe we'll get fully orchestrated music!!! [/hoping too much]

[Ventus]

I was actually expecting the engine to be a lot better than this. It looks and feels like its possible to put a game with this kind of graphics on the original DS.

Agreed, You would think with the "3DS" the console that has already shown what it can do with OoT 3D, they would spice up the graphics for gods sake.
I think the graphics look god awful from what I seen so far.

And to leave on a good note, Fennekin has got to be one the best starters I've seen in awhile. I mean who doesn't love fox's. <3

[kurt91]

For once I actually like two of the three starters (fire + grass), so I can make my initial choice based on strategy rather than whichever one looks the least stupid and that I can bear to look at for the next fifty hours. That hasn't happened since Gold and Silver (also fire + grass. Water hasn't looked decent since Squirtle)

No complaints here on the art style, and you have to remember that once you add in the roughly 100 new Pokemon to the number we already have (what are we at now, 500-600?), plus the fact that each one needs a model and animations for around fifty different attacks, I think I can understand dumbing down the graphics a bit to save space. If they were throwing out the old ones entirely and going back to only having 150 Pokemon again, then yeah, I'd think they'd need to wow a bit more on graphics.

Unfortunately, I'm back to playing catch-up. I just finished the main-game Pokemon White, still have Black 2 (Have it, haven't started yet) to play through (I'm going to wait until I can import my White Pokemon with PokeSav or PokeGen, but I'll pace out what ones I use by level so I'm still playing fairly. It still looks too much like DLC than an actual new game.), which means I'm still going to be lagging one generation behind by the time these come out. Also, I don't own a 3DS yet, so that's going to slow me down even more.

One of these days, I'm going to find ALL of my old games (Blue, Gold, Emerald, Platinum, White, Black 2, X/Y) and make a full list of every single one I've caught so far so I can import them all into one game. It really sucks spending nearly a hundred hours searching for the little buggers just to have to start completely over one game later. I just wish there was an official way to do it other than needing a crapload of additional systems and cables because NOBODY IN THIS FREAKING TOWN OWNS A VIDEO GAME!!!!! (Newport, Population: 200. Nearly all old people who don't ever think of going anywhere else.)

[Jared]

It looks amazing so far. What a nice leap into 3D!!
I need to buy and play White 2 first. >.<

[The Satellite]

Random aside: How long before we see Kyle XY parodies thanks to the games' names?

[Bayta]

X and Y, huh? So how long until we get Pokémon Z?

Badum-tsh.

Anyway... ehh... I'm not impressed, overall. The battles look okay, but the overworld... not so much. Looks like what I expected B/W to look like before I saw screenshots. I hope it gets some real polishing up before release.

[kurt91]

Next set of games: Pokemon LMNOP.

To be honest, I'm not that surprised they switched away from colors, really. I mean, Gold/Silver sort of upped it into colors/precious metals or gems, which led to the pattern for Crystal, Diamond, Pearl, Ruby, etc. Black/White only really worked because of the whole yin/yang theme they were trying to go for. What "valuable" colors do they have left to work with? Can't go for stuff like Quartz, because people will naturally think of that ROM hack.

[Jenny]

So far, everything is looking pretty nice, and I really like the looks of the fire and water starter.

Also:

[HylianGlaceon]

Here's to hoping the game also mixes in older pokemon, like some of the other games did. I hate having to be stuck with what's specifically in a certain generation, which is one of the reasons I passed on gen 5.

Out of the five pokemon shown, the legendaries don't really impress me. They look blah at best. The fire type fox starter is alright, I have a bad feeling when it evolves, it evolves into something really ugly however. The other two, honestly look really bad. No offense, but if I get this game, there's no way I'd choose any of them. Chespin looks like some monkey wearing a seashell as a hat. I'm sick of monkeys in pokemon, there's just been too many of them. (Odds are Chespin isn't even a monkey too, but it still makes me think it) And Froakie, just looks kinda dumb.

Honestly, one of the bigger deciding factors to this to me will be whether or not there's a new Eeveelution in this gen. I know it's unfair and biased, but I seem to always like all of those. I haven't liked a completely new and unrelated to older pokemon since gen 3, and I'm doubting this gen will be any different.

[Orithan]

Really interesting. I like the looks of the Y-legendary and the fire starter out of the pokemon shown the most, but I like what the water and grass starters look like the least. I was a bit disappointed that they made the leap to full 3D, but I knew that was going to happen soon.

Pokemon is dead to me. Well it was actually dead when they named an antagonist after a letter of the alphabet (and a rather mediocre one at that), but now it's deader than dead. I dunno, I was really hoping it would make the leap into full 3D a little better than this for the main series. Pokemon XD: Gale of Darkness looked so much better than this and that was released seven years ago on a graphically inferior system. Why do the character models look like those of a regular DS game? Why the cell shading (which only Wind Waker and Okami ever did right IMO)? Why do battles still take place on little floating discs? Why is the main character's head still almost as big as his body? How could they do this so wrong!?

0/10. Never again.

Minecraft - Outdated graphics and some cliche enemies and items (A ZOMBIE? serously? Generic Golden Apples are generic, the graphics look worse than the N64 and this is being built in 2009? You have gotta be kidding me!). 0/10 [sarcasm/]

I'm sorry, but rating a game a 0 just because you think it looks ugly and it is not as original as it could be? This is just like rating Minecraft a 0 for its low-end graphics and some slightly unoriginal names (as I implied with sarcasm). How do you know that it going to be completely terrible?
In other words, you should rethink your rating just because you haven't played it. I will ask this again, How do you know it is going to be a completely terrible game (and don't say graphics, because Minecraft would be terrible from that standpoint but it is a great game because it more than makes up than that with its other aspects of gameplay)? Its fine if you just ignore it, but you seriously shouldn't go to rate it 0 just because you don't like how the graphics are low-end and originality of some of the things in it.

[Tree]

Minecraft - Outdated graphics and some cliche enemies and items (A ZOMBIE? serously? Generic Golden Apples are generic, the graphics look worse than the N64 and this is being built in 2009? You have gotta be kidding me!). 0/10 [sarcasm/]

I'm sorry, but rating a game a 0 just because you think it looks ugly and it is not as original as it could be? This is just like rating Minecraft a 0 for its low-end graphics and some slightly unoriginal names (as I implied with sarcasm). How do you know that it going to be completely terrible?
In other words, you should rethink your rating just because you haven't played it. I will ask this again, How do you know it is going to be a completely terrible game (and don't say graphics, because Minecraft would be terrible from that standpoint but it is a great game because it more than makes up than that with its other aspects of gameplay)? Its fine if you just ignore it, but you seriously shouldn't go to rate it 0 just because you don't like how the graphics are low-end and originality of some of the things in it.

Could not agree with you more, good sir. Graphics don't make a good game. You don't know how many 6th grader Call of Duty fans I've told this to.

[Shane]

I'm sorry, but rating a game a 0 just because you think it looks ugly and it is not as original as it could be? This is just like rating Minecraft a 0 for its low-end graphics and some slightly unoriginal names (as I implied with sarcasm). How do you know that it going to be completely terrible?
In other words, you should rethink your rating just because you haven't played it. I will ask this again, How do you know it is going to be a completely terrible game (and don't say graphics, because Minecraft would be terrible from that standpoint but it is a great game because it more than makes up than that with its other aspects of gameplay)? Its fine if you just ignore it, but you seriously shouldn't go to rate it 0 just because you don't like how the graphics are low-end and originality of some of the things in it.

The rating Moosh rated might have been a joke, and I guess you took it too seriously. I mean it's Moosh after all lol.

Edited by Shane, 09 January 2013 - 03:37 AM.

[Moosh]

Minecraft - Outdated graphics and some cliche enemies and items (A ZOMBIE? serously? Generic Golden Apples are generic, the graphics look worse than the N64 and this is being built in 2009? You have gotta be kidding me!). 0/10 [sarcasm/]

I'm sorry, but rating a game a 0 just because you think it looks ugly and it is not as original as it could be? This is just like rating Minecraft a 0 for its low-end graphics and some slightly unoriginal names (as I implied with sarcasm). How do you know that it going to be completely terrible?
In other words, you should rethink your rating just because you haven't played it. I will ask this again, How do you know it is going to be a completely terrible game (and don't say graphics, because Minecraft would be terrible from that standpoint but it is a great game because it more than makes up than that with its other aspects of gameplay)? Its fine if you just ignore it, but you seriously shouldn't go to rate it 0 just because you don't like how the graphics are low-end and originality of some of the things in it.

The 0/10 was a joke. If I was actually rating the trailer I'd focus on more than the graphics (although they were a large part of the trailer). I don't really think X and Y will be on par with say Action 52. I've just lost interest in the series as a whole and think that these games look like they poorly utilize the graphical capabilities of the 3DS. I can't say they'll be as bad as I think, but they haven't left a strong first impression. Also I don't see why if other people can scream "OMG, 3D," I can't scream "OMG, poorly implemented 3D." On Minecraft, I personally feel that it sucks, so yeah...Anyways, Minecraft's focus was never on the visuals while Pokemon has focused more and more on visuals with each new game. There's also that Minecraft was an indie game that went viral. If Notch had the resources he has now when he was starting Minecraft, I bet it would have looked a lot different.

Edited by Moosh, 09 January 2013 - 07:59 AM.

[Dawnlight]

Will we finally get a Pure fully evolved fire starter and not giving him fighting type traits like in the previous 3 Gen's?

[Koh]

Will we finally get a Pure fully evolved fire starter and not giving him fighting type traits like in the previous 3 Gen's?

How about more Pure Flying types? And another Pokemon as awesome as Lanturn? Lanturn is the best there is~