# 5th gen. Pokemon games announced.



## Thomas09 (Jan 30, 2010)

... Are you excited?


----------



## AndyRoo789 (Jan 30, 2010)

Cool.

I quit pokemon around the time diamond/pearl came out.

Emerald was da bomb.


----------



## wing92 (Jan 30, 2010)

What's really changed between the first pokemon games and now these fifth generation ones besides the addition of around 250 new pokemon? The basic gameplay has always been the same: you can hold six pokemon, each of which can know 4 attacks. Walk around in the grass a lot to train your pokemon until you're ready to take on a gym leader. Beat the gym leader, move on to the next town's patch of grass.

Don't get me wrong, I've put many hours into Pokemon Red and had lots of fun with it. Yesterday I was playing diamond(I think) on a friend's DS and it was really no different. The inventory was organized. There was a clock. I may be completely missing something here but it seems to me that there's nothing new to be excited about.


----------



## Forte (Jan 30, 2010)

wing92 said:


> What's really changed between the first pokemon games and now these fifth generation ones besides the addition of around 250 new pokemon? The basic gameplay has always been the same: you can hold six pokemon, each of which can know 4 attacks. Walk around in the grass a lot to train your pokemon until you're ready to take on a gym leader. Beat the gym leader, move on to the next town's patch of grass.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I've put many hours into Pokemon Red and had lots of fun with it. Yesterday I was playing diamond(I think) on a friend's DS and it was really no different. The inventory was organized. There was a clock. I may be completely missing something here but it seems to me that there's nothing new to be excited about.


Actual battle mechanics have changes a lot. The ingame story is always lame >_>


----------



## wing92 (Jan 30, 2010)

Forte said:


> Actual battle mechanics have changes a lot.


How so? It seems to me to just be you pick a move, the other person picks a move, whoever's faster goes first unless there's a quick attack. Are there more things that cause a lasting effect like poison and paralyze? I'm curious now.


> The ingame story is always lame >_>


Agreed.


----------



## ISuckAtCubing (Jan 30, 2010)

wing92 said:


> What's really changed between the first pokemon games and now these fifth generation ones besides the addition of around 250 new pokemon? The basic gameplay has always been the same: you can hold six pokemon, each of which can know 4 attacks. Walk around in the grass a lot to train your pokemon until you're ready to take on a gym leader. Beat the gym leader, move on to the next town's patch of grass.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I've put many hours into Pokemon Red and had lots of fun with it. Yesterday I was playing diamond(I think) on a friend's DS and it was really no different. The inventory was organized. There was a clock. I may be completely missing something here but it seems to me that there's nothing new to be excited about.



I agree


----------



## Thomas09 (Jan 30, 2010)

wing92 said:


> Forte said:
> 
> 
> > Actual battle mechanics have changes a lot.
> ...


I could go into detail. Do you want me too?


----------



## janelle (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm excited  But it probably won't come out in the US 'til next year  Well at least there will be HG/SS 

Yeah I agree. It's pretty much the same it was before, they just added new features.


----------



## moogra (Jan 30, 2010)

Have the battle mechanics changed after ruby/sapphire? I don't recall but I could be wrong. After all, I don't play much.


----------



## Thomas09 (Jan 30, 2010)

moogra said:


> Have the battle mechanics changed after ruby/sapphire? I don't recall but I could be wrong. After all, I don't play much.



Yes. One type would always be assigned to either Physical or Special. Like Ice punch would be special because it's an ice type. In 4th gen they fixed that and seperated them depending on if it made sense. So Ice Punch would be physical is it's phisically hitting them.


----------



## maggot (Jan 30, 2010)

why people play this when there is much better thing to do with time.... go learn your oll...


----------



## Thomas09 (Jan 30, 2010)

maggot said:


> why people play this when there is much better thing to do with time.... go learn your oll...


Why? Because it's fun. Why do we cube? Because it's fun.


----------



## Zarxrax (Jan 30, 2010)

The newer pokemon games just take the old formula and slightly refine it. It's still the same core game, but it's slighty improved each time. It's really no different from how you have a new version of a sports game like Madden every year, or new versions of fighting games like street fighter.

Personally, I'm a bit tired of the formula, so I'm not all that interested. Also I think there's just way too many pokemon and stuff now, it's a lot of work to actually learn it all. I would be much more excited if they made a new game with just the original 150~ pokemon and radically changed it somehow.


----------



## eastamazonantidote (Jan 30, 2010)

The only reason I care about pokemon anymore is because of Shoddy. This is also why I am looking forward to the game's release. My stall team needs a little extra fat.


----------



## Forte (Jan 30, 2010)

Thomas09 said:


> moogra said:
> 
> 
> > Have the battle mechanics changed after ruby/sapphire? I don't recall but I could be wrong. After all, I don't play much.
> ...



Yeah, this has basically made some Pokemon totally worthless, and some Pokemon totally awesome.

And from 1st and 2nd gen, the biggest changes are abilities and double battles.


----------



## blade740 (Jan 30, 2010)

Honestly, I have played one game from every generation and enjoyed every one. Every generation they do things just a little better, and create a bunch of new pokemon for me to figure out. I remember back in the day when I hadn't seen all 150 pokemon, red was so interesting. You were always wondering what the next awesome pokemon you'd see would be (even though you know it's probably a zubat anyway). Changing the roster just gives a new sense of mystery. 

Plus, they know that if they screw with the gameplay too much it won't feel like pokemon any more.


----------



## Dene (Jan 30, 2010)

Personally I think they should have stopped after Silver/Gold. Things got a bit out of control after then I think. The thing that bugged me the most was the double team thing that they started. In one of the very first Pokemon episodes they made it clear that double team fights were illegal. :/


----------



## blade740 (Jan 30, 2010)

EVERYONE says something like that. "They were good up to [insert your favorite generation here]"

Also, the TV show was written by a completely different company than the games, so you can't really take anything from the show as canon.


----------



## Toad (Jan 30, 2010)

Just to say, I haven't read any of this thread apart from the title but have this to say:

Pokemon Red, Blue, and Yellow on the Gameboy are the only true Pokemon games.

All these others are for complete newfags who like pretty colours more than a decent storyline / good game.

[/rant]


----------



## blade740 (Jan 30, 2010)

>_> Way to prove my post right above yours.

The storyline in red/blue/yellow was just as lame as the other ones. The game was just as good. You just refuse to accept anything else.


----------



## Googlrr (Jan 30, 2010)

randomtoad said:


> Just to say, I haven't read any of this thread apart from the title but have this to say:
> 
> Pokemon Red, Blue, and Yellow on the Gameboy are the only true Pokemon games.
> 
> ...



All of the games are good in their own respects. Though yellow is definitely my favorite and I've beaten it countless times, Gold and silver were very good as well. I liked the idea of the 16 total gym battles from the different regions. 

And no one plays pokemon for the story...ever. It's just terrible all around.


----------



## Lord Voldemort (Jan 30, 2010)

I'm definitely excited, I plan to Heart Gold later this year when it comes out and the 5th gen games too in a year or so when they translate them. And really, the one thing that I play for is the competitive aspect on WiFi, which a lot of people don't even know about. So don't judge. There's more to battling than giving your pokemon Hyper Beam, Blizzard, Fire Blast and Thunder and killing everyone in-game.

EDIT: I have not seen confirmation from other (trustworthy) sources that this is going to be fifth generation, this could be something like Pokemon Ranger or Mystery Dungeon, and not necessarily with new Pokemon.


----------



## Dene (Jan 31, 2010)

blade740 said:


> EVERYONE says something like that. "They were good up to [insert your favorite generation here]"
> 
> Also, the TV show was written by a completely different company than the games, so you can't really take anything from the show as canon.



Well, let's start with Crystal, which was a completely pointless add-on to silver/gold, as were leaf-green and fire-red.
My brother got ruby I think, but he never really got into it, and I could understand why. The games moved away from what Pokemon was about, and became just another game.


----------



## r_517 (Jan 31, 2010)

awesome! cant wait for it


----------



## Muesli (Jan 31, 2010)

Each pokemon game is just a prettier and more polished version of the last one, with slightly newer features. Reminds me of Microsoft really.


----------



## Brettludlow (Jan 31, 2010)

Bring back the original 151 pokemon I say


----------



## Blake4512 (Jan 31, 2010)

Cool


----------



## Edmund (Jan 31, 2010)

I like the originals but maybe I'll give it a chance.


----------



## blade740 (Jan 31, 2010)

Dene said:


> Well, let's start with Crystal, which was a completely pointless add-on to silver/gold, as were leaf-green and fire-red.
> My brother got ruby I think, but he never really got into it, and I could understand why. The games moved away from what Pokemon was about, and became just another game.



Yeah, I'm not a big fan of the "third game" in each generation. Yellow was the only one that was actually different enough to be fun. Crystal/Emerald/Platinum were all just useless add-ons to sell more copies. 

What was pokemon about originally that ruby didn't capture?


----------



## Dene (Feb 1, 2010)

To be honest, I can't really be specific with you there. It has been a very long time since I played Pokemon and I don't remember Ruby/Sapphire at all.


----------



## Edmund (Feb 1, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > Well, let's start with Crystal, which was a completely pointless add-on to silver/gold, as were leaf-green and fire-red.
> ...



Nah, you could catch more Pokemon in Emerald and the legendaries and stuff. Oh and was there that battle island thing after the elite for in ruby and sapphire? There might have been I just forget


----------



## miniGOINGS (Feb 1, 2010)

I like Yellow and Emerald. That's it.


----------



## blade740 (Feb 1, 2010)

Edmund said:


> Nah, you could catch more Pokemon in Emerald and the legendaries and stuff. Oh and was there that battle island thing after the elite for in ruby and sapphire? There might have been I just forget



Yeah, but those weren't really that much of an addition. It's just a way for gamefreak to make a third game without having to create all that much new content. It's really just a marketing scheme (as is, I suppose, the fact that there are two games to start with in each generation) Most people will only buy one game per generation, but if they make it seem like the third game is different enough (and release it later), someone who already bought one game that generation will buy a second (and the die-hard fans who need to catch 'em all will buy all 3).



Dene said:


> To be honest, I can't really be specific with you there. It has been a very long time since I played Pokemon and I don't remember Ruby/Sapphire at all.


Exactly. I think you just refused to like it because you thought they should've quit making new games (and new pokemon). 

In my opinion, every generation has been a bit better than the last, and all are worth playing at least once.


----------



## Stini (Feb 1, 2010)

Did you know that there are as many Pokemons as ZBLL cases? 
You could actually name every case by a Pokemon - I think I'll start calling "Sune" from now on "Bulbasaur".


----------



## Dene (Feb 1, 2010)

blade740 said:


> Dene said:
> 
> 
> > To be honest, I can't really be specific with you there. It has been a very long time since I played Pokemon and I don't remember Ruby/Sapphire at all.
> ...



I would have liked to see a game that was more interactive to be honest. I don't know if they ever got around to doing that sort of thing in the game. Certainly not in any one that I've played.
As for the new Pokemon, I agree with your comment to an extent. The majority of the original Pokemon were very creative. The second generation struggled. Those that I saw of the third generation were terrible. It became "let's make a Pokemon like a coaster and call it 'Coastor'". I have no complaints with the creative Pokemon, but they seemed to run out of ideas.
(Btw the example came from the coaster sitting on my desk).

EDIT: I should also point out that another thing that turned me off was having to get a new gameboy to play the new games. I only ever got one gameboy, from the see-through colour generation. Then they came out with about 10 different designs in 2 years and it seemed like a waste of money to keep up.


----------

