I look for 2 things in pokemon games: - Some challenging trainer battles with the gym leaders and Elite 4/champion. These boys need to have at least a cool signature pokemon - preferably one you haven't seen before - and pose somewhat of a challenge. - The "gotta catch em all" aspect. I do want to complete the pokedex in each entry. This needs to be somewhat feasible and enjoyable. The last few games forced you to get Switch Online to complete the pokedex, which is annoying.
I guess this also explains why I disliked Arceus so much. There were almost no trainer battles. Fighting the Nobles was a poor alternative. While the final fight vs Volo certainly provided some difficulty, it wasn't the 'right' type of difficulty, but the frustrating type (8v6 and some bullshit moves etc.) Battling in general was completely broken due to the Agile/Powerful stances anyway. Hope they completely revisit the battling aspect in Legends Z-A.
Completing the Pokedex was equally annoying. For some mons you had to wait for the Space-Time Distortion zones to appear, and then pray to RNG that the pokemon you needed spawned. If it didn't, more waiting. Catching Enamorus/Tornadus and some other bosses was also extremely frustrating.
I'm reasonably confident that anyone who praises Arceus didn't actually complete the Pokedex in that game, but feel free to prove me wrong.
On May 16 2024 23:48 andrewlt wrote: I like battle tower as the endgame. I believe gen 3-7 all had it. Gen 6 had battle chateau to grind your pokemon to 100, which is better than feeding them candies and other nonsense from later games.
I think Battle Tower is fun, but I also like when there are other side quests and explorations out in the world that become unlocked as part of the end/post-game.
I do like the post-game side quests and I feel like most games have a good amount of them (especially the remakes that make a ton of legendaries available). I really didn't like dens replacing battle tower as the end game challenge, however. The Sw/Sh games were really good otherwise. I haven't tried the new ones yet.
Pokemon games generally have a short, easy main game and it feels like it's getting shorter and easier with every new generation. That puts more of an emphasis on the endgame activities to make the games worth it.
I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, I don't think I like that approach. I don't want the main game to be "sacrificed" and need to rely on the post-game to still be a worthwhile purchase; I want the post-game to be amazing bonus content that takes the entire package from great to absolutely spectacular.
I'm definitely with you on this. I want the main game to be the main game and not some throw in. The last mainline entry I played was Sword. I think I finished the main game in 50-60 hours and maybe half of that was in the optional open world area. The games have definitely become easier. The first few had some dungeon crawls (and even treks between towns) that would require you to actually use your entire team so you don't run out of HP and PP.
Yeah, in Pokemon Scarlet, I beat the entire main game using just my starter Pokemon (except for the super-rare instances where the battle/environment was set up so that you needed to toss out a second or third filler Pokemon). Kind of depressing, in that regard, and it's usually up to the post-game to deliver something difficult.
On May 22 2024 17:17 Laurens wrote: I look for 2 things in pokemon games: - Some challenging trainer battles with the gym leaders and Elite 4/champion. These boys need to have at least a cool signature pokemon - preferably one you haven't seen before - and pose somewhat of a challenge. - The "gotta catch em all" aspect. I do want to complete the pokedex in each entry. This needs to be somewhat feasible and enjoyable. The last few games forced you to get Switch Online to complete the pokedex, which is annoying.
I guess this also explains why I disliked Arceus so much. There were almost no trainer battles. Fighting the Nobles was a poor alternative. While the final fight vs Volo certainly provided some difficulty, it wasn't the 'right' type of difficulty, but the frustrating type (8v6 and some bullshit moves etc.) Battling in general was completely broken due to the Agile/Powerful stances anyway. Hope they completely revisit the battling aspect in Legends Z-A.
Completing the Pokedex was equally annoying. For some mons you had to wait for the Space-Time Distortion zones to appear, and then pray to RNG that the pokemon you needed spawned. If it didn't, more waiting. Catching Enamorus/Tornadus and some other bosses was also extremely frustrating.
I'm reasonably confident that anyone who praises Arceus didn't actually complete the Pokedex in that game, but feel free to prove me wrong.
While I was obsessed with completing the Pokedex way back in the day, in Gens 1 and 2, I just haven't done that anymore. For all the later gens, I'm not buying both versions of the game to catch all the new Pokemon, nor am I transferring Pokemon from generation to generation. I didn't catch 'em all in PL:A, but that's the norm for me nowadays. Props to those who still keep up with it!
They did something I really like in Pokemon Shining Pearl: They ask you to "complete" *their* regular Pokedex, which can be done with a single version (don't need both Shining Pearl and Brilliant Diamond), and they define "complete" as seeing - not necessarily catching - all of their Pokemon... and you end up seeing over 95% of the Pokemon simply through all the trainer battles and a cursory walkthrough of the grassy areas. It's not annoyingly time-consuming to meet their bar, which then unlocks a ton of post-game content, a ton of new Pokemon, and their National Pokedex (with wayyy more entries). I was content with "completing" the game's *original* Pokedex, tinkering with other post-game content, catching extra Pokemon here or there, and then moving on without obsessing over the National Pokedex.
The remastered version of Nintendo GameCube's Paper Mario: The Thousand-Year Door is releasing tomorrow on Switch, and the early reviews/scores are so high that it's already a candidate for one of the best games of 2024!
On May 21 2024 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is a nice little nod and analysis of how Nintendo and its vision of innovation, creativity, and gameplay are massively more successful than the diminishing returns of Sony's/Microsoft's philosophy of graphics, graphics, and more graphics. When all you do is focus on higher resolution and the most expensive technology, games become way too expensive to create and take much longer to produce, hence the small number of PS5 and Xbox S/X games available (and their much, much weaker sales in both hardware and software), compared to the Switch.
building software on a small team is a lot more rewarding than being a single cog in a 150 person machine assembling a something you barely recognize.
Nintendo's core has always been about games. MS and Sony are giant international megacorps whose shareholders thought that adding on a game division would be a great way to "optimize profit".
Except that Sony has had enough troubles over the past few decades that the games division had to carry them for a while. The games division is definitely an afterthought for MS.
On May 23 2024 00:31 andrewlt wrote: Except that Sony has had enough troubles over the past few decades that the games division had to carry them for a while. The games division is definitely an afterthought for MS.
the PS1 was introduced in 1994. By 2002, the video game biz made up 10% of Sony. Sony is not a grassroots video game company in the way Nintendo or Activision or Blizzard were.
Sony is constantly trying to "synergize" their games with other media formats in order to "optimize profits". Nintendo or Activision or Blizzard, when they started, were just trying to make great games. Sony was "diversifying its portfolio of assets".
On May 22 2024 21:34 Yaqoob wrote: I used one of my Nintendo Switch vouchers and pre-ordered it a few days ago so I can't wait to start playing it tomorrow. Also, I love Arlo's channel!
I just started playing Animal Crossing: New Horizons, so I'm going to try my best to split my time between AC:NH and Paper Mario AC:NH is a lot slower and relaxing and open-ended of a game than I'm used to, but it's very wholesome and funny and addicting in a good way. I've never played an Animal Crossing game before, and now I see why it's so popular!
On May 21 2024 22:11 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: This is a nice little nod and analysis of how Nintendo and its vision of innovation, creativity, and gameplay are massively more successful than the diminishing returns of Sony's/Microsoft's philosophy of graphics, graphics, and more graphics. When all you do is focus on higher resolution and the most expensive technology, games become way too expensive to create and take much longer to produce, hence the small number of PS5 and Xbox S/X games available (and their much, much weaker sales in both hardware and software), compared to the Switch.
building software on a small team is a lot more rewarding than being a single cog in a 150 person machine assembling a something you barely recognize.
Nintendo's core has always been about games. MS and Sony are giant international megacorps whose shareholders thought that adding on a game division would be a great way to "optimize profit".
Well said.
“On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer.” ~ Satoru Iwata
On May 23 2024 00:31 andrewlt wrote: Except that Sony has had enough troubles over the past few decades that the games division had to carry them for a while. The games division is definitely an afterthought for MS.
the PS1 was introduced in 1994. By 2002, the video game biz made up 10% of Sony. Sony is not a grassroots video game company in the way Nintendo or Activision or Blizzard were.
Sony is constantly trying to "synergize" their games with other media formats in order to "optimize profits". Nintendo or Activision or Blizzard, when they started, were just trying to make great games. Sony was "diversifying its portfolio of assets".
I know that. Just saying that Sony is closer to Nintendo than Microsoft nowadays. Without their games division, they're pretty fucked. They had to exit (or retrench) a lot of their legacy businesses over the past few decades. The non-gaming parts of Sony aren't worth much of anything anymore.
Market cap: Microsoft - $3.2T Sony - $99B Nintendo - $61B
Nintendo lives , eats, and breathes video games. Sony is always trying to leverage video games into something else. With Nintendo... the game is the thing.
You'd need Profit graphs, not Revenue. I get their point though, if 25% of revenue originates from their gaming division, making it their biggest division, then I see what they mean when they say it is closer to Nintendo than to Microsoft.
Nintendo lives , eats, and breathes video games. Sony is always trying to leverage video games into something else. With Nintendo... the game is the thing.
Sony's market cap is only 60% more than Nintendo is right now. If you separate the company into gaming and non-gaming, one or both of them would be worth less than Nintendo.
Revenue is not market cap. Otherwise, Walmart would be the most valuable company in the US. Some of Sony's segments could be losing money and not be worth much.
On May 24 2024 02:07 Laurens wrote: You'd need Profit graphs, not Revenue. I get their point though, if 25% of revenue originates from their gaming division, making it their biggest division, then I see what they mean when they say it is closer to Nintendo than to Microsoft.
I disagree. Say your revenue is 100 units in Division "A" and your revenue is 0.2 units in Division "B". Division "A" produces 0 profit and Division "B" produced 0.1 units of profit.... your people are not spending all their time focused on Divison "B". So basing everything on profit does not work. This company in question is a Division "A" company.
So revenue is a good indicator of what the company spends its time on. Relying only on profit does not indicate how much time your company's focus and energy goes into a division.
You see Sony's lack of understanding about game making in Sony's disrespect of their subsidiries' game development processes. Sony thought they could get several studios to move away from their proven successful game making processes into building always-on live-service monsters like Destiny2. The exec making that decision is long gone. When he entered the company video games were nothing to Sony and he knew nothing about video games... and it shows.
Bungie erased Destiny2's first 2 years of content which were purchased in boxes on retail shelves. Language throughout the EULA claims you are the "owner" of the content and not the licensee.
Sony is not really a game company. Sony does what Nintendon't
Atari got a new CEO guy. Wade something-or-other. Since he has taken over Atari has done many great things. Their "Recharged" series is quite good. Their hardware is really cool. The new Atari cartridges are amazing.
Everything from Atari in the last year on the Switch ranges from above average to great with 1 big exception. Berzerk Recharged. its bad. I love the 1980 Berzerk Arcade game and I've been playing it on MAME off-and-on since 1999. The best modernization of 1980 Berzerk is Robert decrescenzo's "Frenzy" for the atari 7800.
Stay away from Berzerk: Recharged on the Switch. Somehow Atari took a very simple, addictive game play paradigm and botched it.
That's too bad about B:R, but I'm glad to hear that Atari is doing all right in general! My mom had an Atari 2600, so it was technically my first home console growing up. There were some really great games back in the day; it was amazing what you could do with a single joystick/paddle and just one button! Our three favorite games were Megamania, Kaboom!, and River Raid. All amazing and addicting.
The free demo for The Legend of Heroes: Trails Through Daybreak just dropped. Definitely recommend it if you like RPGs / Falcom games / Legends and Trails series. Combat is interesting so far - you can alternate between turn-based positional battling and real-time action battling. Seems promising!
EPT
AC:NH is a lot slower and relaxing and open-ended of a game than I'm used to, but it's very wholesome and funny and addicting in a good way. I've never played an Animal Crossing game before, and now I see why it's so popular! 
