I don't like any of the new Pokémon ;_;

Neither do I...they can't beat the original in my opinion. They all look weird and even more childish

Agreed... They always over-do things, and to be quite honest, I think they should have stopped at D&P.

At least it will make things more interesting. I'm all for nostalgia trips, but both the main and meta-games needed to be mixed up.

Why does Nintendo continue to tout new Pokemon as a "feature"? Any percieved problem with Pokemon doesn't lie with the quantity or quality of the Pokemon, it's completely with the gameplay... And 3 v. 3 battles isn't the answer.

It seems like Gamefreak's answer to every question is "Do what we did, but more". Maybe try something a little more creative?

In the Metagame, 2v2 is considered to be broken, and thus 3v3 will probably be utterly broken. It's also too much. The base gameplay does not need to be changed at all, just make sure it's a bit more balanced, Smogon rules only have about 50 Pokemon that are really viable for competitive battling.

Less = More.

I was never a fan of 2v2 battles anyway so 3v3 just sounds over the top. I'd prefer to spend my time exploring the new places in the game than wasting time battling 3 Pokemon at once... what's the point? There's the potential to have almost half of your Pokemon KO'd in a couple of seconds. Just silly if you ask me.

Why do they feel the need to keep making hundreds of new pokemon for each game. There was nothing wrong with the old ones, they are still the best. Just make new games with new areas and maybe add 25-50 pokemon per game and make sure they are actually quality pokemon, and maybe some new legendaries. That's all they need to do. I mean all the pokemon they add now anyway are pretty much just the same as older ones with different and gayer sprites to represent them.

The franchise died for me after Ruby & Sapphire. After that I felt there was nothing more to offer.

i've personally felt the entire battle system needs to be re-worked, it's just too repetitive and un-fun, there's nearly no strategy involved(besides type battles, everything else is just being a higher level, or having more potions imo), it was fine for a few generations, but for me, i usually get to the point where i'm just tapping a to get through a battle as fast as i can, something more interactive would be better(i always thought a SSB battle system would be awesome for Pokemon).

Pokemon can be incredibly strategic if playing with a human. With the AI what you said applies but regarding humans they actually can use status effects to their fullest potential and things like Baton Pass gain a use.

As for the new Pokemon, I hate every single one except for the bird. What the hell is the thing on the bottom right supposed to be? A cotton ball dipped in nail polish?

Bird = Pidgey (whatever the other forms are)

Chipmunk = Rattata

Green thing = Bulbasaur

Cottonball = probably Butterfly or whatever

Why bother making new bad looking pokemon when they all end up being the same anyway and can just use the older better ones!

The second one in looks like an anorexic emo Jynx.

Or Gardevoir. They seem to always use the same types and just make a new image for it.

The bird just looks like ho-oh.

valid point, i haven't had the oppurtunity to face many human opponents, which leaves the AI, which makes battle just....boring

That bird pokemon on the left better have a move called falcon punch.

Not impressed either with the new pokemon so far, although the bird one looks alright and bulbasaur-ish one looks good IMO.

Same, I missed Diamond and Pearl but eventually gave Platinum a try, probably played about 20-30 hours then lost interest. I'll probably give it another try before Black and White come out.

This thread is so comical. Late teens and adults saying the "new" pokemon are childish looking....

The entire fucking series is geared towards 5-10 year olds, it's all childish. God I hate everything to do with pokemon.

lol, I wont argue that it's all childish, I don't know who said otherwise.

Then again, aren't games just toys? Shoving a chainsaw up somebody's ass isn't less childish. Video Games are inherently childish. What's the difference between Gears of War, and Chutes and Ladders?

Fact is, I find the game it's self fun. I don't like the new pokemon, because it introduces added (in my mind, unneed) complexity that I have no interest in steeping my self in. I just want to have fun with the characters I have nostalgia for.

It's no different than grown men waxing poetic about the Transformer's movie.

Careful old man, don't want put that heart out.

It is that kind of attitude that stops people from appreciating videogames as a true artform.

/ontopic

I haven't finished a pokémon game since Pokémon Gold. Hell, I bought Diamond and I put about 25 hours into and go to a snowy mountain place but never felt motivated to beat it. Safe to say I won't be buying Black or White.

I also hate the 3D world aspect of the game. The characters are still sprites, just superimposed onto a 3D rendered scene :\

Also, isn't the pokémon on the top right already in one of the previous generations?

I think you're thinking of this, although most of them look so similar now a days so I'm probably wrong.

http://www.serebii.net/potw-dp/Politoed.jpg

Nope, thinking something ursa...either a bear one or some ground one....somethingsomething-itar...

EDIT: Got it, Larvitar

http://archives.bulbagarden.net/media/upload/thumb/7/70/246Larvitar.png/100px-246Larvitar.png

Oh yeah, another shit one.

original 151 were great, 251 I could put up with, especially with the addition of Steel and Dark (which were great because Psychic were OP since Ghost were meant to be effective but the only Ghost were dual type Poison and Psychic were super effective against Poison). 493 though is a ridiculous amount of pokémon though considering most of them are just rubbish.

Holy shit. Whatever that bird pokemon is, it already has a spot on my team.

Can you tell me why it matters? Why do you need the validation?

If you think it's art, it's art... That's the beauty of art, it's in the eye of the beholder, and it's undefinable. In fact, trying to put labels on art is the antithesis of what art is supposed to be.

I'm so over the "games are art" bullshit. What happens when Ebert says "games are indeed art"... Will you sleep better?

I'm pretty sure he was joking man.

No but when people don't dismiss videogames as being childish then I will.

If someone just goes "oh but it's just a children's thing" then it does take away from it being appreciated.

As for art being undefinable...well..

That's a pretty good definition there.

It also includes items which in the past were dismissed as 'childish' things like literature and film.

Fact is, there are some beautiful games with amazing stories out there that are definitely not childish yet because they are a videogame would be dismissed as such. It's a flipping disgrace.

It won't change until people accept that videogames are more than for children. I don't mean all this bullshit 'mature' stuff like the gory kills from Gears of War or Manhunt either. Something like Shadow of the Colossus or Deus Ex are examples of how great videogames can be.

But why does it matter? What changes when people feign acceptance over your hobby? If you link your happiness to what others think, you're going to be sad for a long, long time.

Also, you can put definitions on what art is, but it's bullshit. I could take a shit on a lobster bisque and call it art. It doesn't matter if people accept it, art isn't a noun, it's a perception. It's something that evokes emotion. If you think something is art, then it is... But your fooling yourself if you're going to waste your time trying to convince others that something is, indeed art. Even if they say it is just to get you to shut up, nothing changes.

By the way, why can't something artful also be childish?

Pokemon is aimed at children, I love it myself and I don't see anything wrong with that, if you enjoy something then good for you but you can't deny that certain games are aimed at lower age groups.

It's the fact that people do fake acceptance is what fucking pisses me off.

Dismissing videogames for being childish yet going and calling The Lion King a great piece of art just because people's perceptions of film are of a more mature and 'worthy' artform.

There is nothing wrong with something being childish. Hell, Alice in Wonderland would be considered childish yet it's still a great book and made a hell of a great film.

The only way that peoples perceptions of videogames will change will be over a long time and with more 'proper adult' games. Not games like MW2 or Killzone but perhaps more games like Heavy Rain. Less gimmicky and adrenaline fuelled.

Films were once in the same situation around the 1920s/1930s. Now they're an accepted artform and people really appreciate them. I just hope to see the same kind of progression with videogames within my lifetime.

Why is it "pissing you off"? That's fucking pathetic. As is your obsession with acceptance from complete strangers.

Are you honestly trying to argue that Rodger Ebert's acceptance will garner "better" games? If that's not what you're saying (which would be a ridiculous point to make), then I'm just missing the point.

I don't care what people think of me. Hell, I've got goddam space invader tattoos on my arm so people will know that I'm a gamer anyways.

I'm from the UK so honestly, I don't know who Rodger Ebert is or why I should care who he is. I've never heard the name before but I'd guess he's a critic who is well known. Having people accept videogames as an artform will not lead to 'better' games, that wasn't my point.

If someone says "yes I play videogames" then anyone else who doesn't like videogames will think less of them and consider them childish.

If someone says "yes I like watching films" then anyone who doesn't like cinema doesn't think any less of them.

THAT needs to bloody change. THAT attitude. It's not right.

Like I said before, it's not happening anytime soon as shown in your posts and I've admitted that. Again, I just hope that it changes within my lifetime. Who knows.

There's no point in even discussing this more, I've laid out my view and gave many comparasions to show what is wrong with how things are. I say we just agree to disagree.

EDIT: The reason I compared videogames to film so much is because they are both relatively new medias and both were made possible by the advancement in technology. It wouldn't of been the same to compare videogames to paintings or literature.

Can you two take your dicks out of each other and get back on topic yeah?

Rodger Ebert is a highly known US film critic who said games could "never be art". He then said "Maybe not never, but I don't see it ever happening". That's why I keep citing him.

Once again, I don't see why it matters. You keep saying you want to see it, and you keep saying it's important, but you haven't said why. What is the tangible difference? Do you just want to be able to pick up shallow women? That is probably the one thing that would change. Certain women might look at you differently.

Once again, the only thing you cite is "acceptance", which is completely hollow to me. If somebody thinks less of you because of your hobby, why do you give two shits about them?

You haven't explained that. All you have said is "we will be more accepted", but I don't know what that actually gains anybody. You haven't spelled that out.

I can make rediculous arguments too! Like this:

I think finger painting is art. Calling video games art is therefore insulting to gamers.

So you think that it's fine for groups of people to NOT be accepted for who they are and what they do and they should be treated differently from anyone else?

I'm not looking for the ability to impress people. People aren't impressed when someone says "I've seen all of Tim Burton's films and own them on Bluray". Negatively treating someone though for a hobby is wrong.

Then you're implying that fingerpainting is above videogames and is superior. A lot of people would take offence to that.

/backontopic

I doubt I would enjoy playing either Black or White. Too many new pokémon, 2D sprites on 3D rendered world would annoy me and the gameplay will probably be the same become a pokémon trainer, beat 8 gym leaders, stop a team something from exploiting pokémon, beat your rival after an Elite group of trainers, capture loads of ubers.

Anyways, back to Tomb Raider Anniversary for me.

Yes, I think it is fine, because you can't tell what people to think, and people aren't going to change their minds, no matter what you tell them.

It's like the gay marriage argument. I don't care if bigots accept it, just as long as they don't legislate against it. As long as I'm legally allowed to play games, I honestly don't give a shit if somebody thinks less of me. I wouldn't want to associate with such closed minded people anyway.