Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
GameCube (Games) Portables (Games) Entertainment Games

Nintendo Celebrates Pokemoniversary 31

Posted by simoniker from the tragic-pun-ign's-fault dept.
Thanks to IGN Pocket for their article pointing out that Nintendo's Pokemon franchise is celebrating its 5th anniversary in the States. According to the article, "Pokemon first launched on the original Game Boy in Japan in 1996. Since bringing the franchise to North America in September 1998, Nintendo has sold more than 110 million Pokemon games worldwide. Pokemon merchandise has generated over $15 billion in worldwide retail sales since 1998." With the HAL-developed Pokemon Pinball:Ruby And Sapphire out now for GBA, and Pokemon Coliseum for GameCube forthcoming early next year as a Pokemon Stadium-style companion for Pokemon Ruby/Sapphire on GBA, it seems Pikachu and friends are here to stay.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nintendo Celebrates Pokemoniversary More

Nintendo Celebrates Pokemoniversary

Comments Filter:

  • Pokemon Malvolution (Score:3, Informative)

    by edward.virtually@pob ( 6854 ) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @05:21AM (#6837325)
    While Pokemon is still around, it obviously isn't as popular as it once was. One reason for this is Nintendo's making Ruby/Saphire incompatible with the Pokemon from previous editions.
    • Not as popular?
      Yet another(6th) movie on the way, and already sold about 10 million copies of Ruby/Sapphire in under a year. I'd say that's DAMN GOOD.
    • What's to be compatible about? It's a new game, a new character, there's nothing to carry forward from previous editions.
      There wouldn't be much point to the game if you could somehow carry forward the Pokemon you had built up to high levels in a previous game and just walk through.

      • In the red/blue to gold/silver transition a beefed up pokemon from red/blue woudn't help much until you have the badge that allows you to "tame" high level pokemon. They'd just refuse to obey your orders at all. After you got the badge though, the game was pretty much over.

        • However...

          Nintendo realises a loophole in this system. If you have a copy of Red and a copy of Gold, you can trade your starting Pokemon from Gold to Red. In Red, this Pokemon can be trained in Unknown Dungeon to, say, level 55. Upon returning to Red, however, the trainer would not need a badge to control this Pokemon, since the ID number states that this Pokemon did, in fact, belong to said trainer. Badges are only necessary to control Pokemon whose original trainer (OT) is different.

          This system of

    • They've never made Pokemon games compatible with the previous generation. Gold/Silver/Crystal was incompatible with Red/Blue/Yellow.

      Chris Mattern
      • Um, WRONG. You can import all pokemon from Blue/Red/Yellow into Gold/Silver/Crystal. That's why Gold/Silver/Crystal did not suck and Ruby/Saphire does.

        • I agree. Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal made several provisions for backward-compatibility:

          • Time Machine
          • Move-Forget Function
          • Preservation of Carried Items

          Perhaps Mister Mattern has not said Pokemon games; if so, then, he cannot be blamed for his blatently incorrect statements.

  • kinda reminds me of kirby pinball, which is an excellent (for bw gb) game, with good physics feeling even the plaything is a cutesy character.

    .

    um. yes.

  • My Thoughts (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Gothic_Walrus ( 692125 ) on Sunday August 31, 2003 @06:50AM (#6837563) Journal
    Pokemon is most definitely a dead fad, but the game franchises won't be going anywhere soon. Even if you hate all of the marketing that once surrounded the series, you've got to admit one thing: the games that started it all were actually good.

    I still remember (was it back in 1998? Seems longer...) when I got my Pokemon Red game. The games had just been released in the U.S. and the series wasn't exactly popular at that point in time. I got the game because I heard it was a good RPG, and I found out that it was. Decent storyline (too bad it hasn't changed in any of the other GB games...), incredibly deep battle system (Bulbasaur or Squirtle?), lots of replay value...Screw Final Fantasy. Now this was an RPG.

    It's unfortunate that Nintendo killed the series' popularity through overexposure (the card game was a bit much). It also didn't help that the new Game Boy games brought some innovations (Gold and Silver) but were mainly retreads of what's been done before (Ruby, Sapphire, Yellow, Crystal).

    In any case, I'm going to remember Pokemon for what it began as: a damn good RPG.

    • RPG???? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Dot.Com.CEO ( 624226 ) * on Sunday August 31, 2003 @09:54AM (#6838309)
      At the danger of the Jap games fanboys jumping on to me, let me make a comment. Those Final Fantasy games you are refering to, as well as the Pokemon "RPGs" are anything but. Sure, you gain points and you can level up, you learn spells etc., but you cannot "role play". Can you choose between being a good or a bad character? Will the game change towards you when you do? If, for example, you decide to play the game again as a different character, will you have a different experience? Do you even have the choice to play the game as a different character? Don't get me wrong, I'm quite fond of the Final Fantasy style games but this thing of calling them RPGs really has to stop at some point. People are even calling the Zelda series an RPG, I'm really beginning to think I've lived my whole life in a paralel gamers universe.

      These games are much closer to the adventure games of old in that they are story and character driven. Please stop calling them RPGs. I suggest you play a game of Morrowind or Neverwinter Nights to see what a real RPG is like.

      • I know exactly what you're talking about, and it bothers me too at times. Still, what other genre would Pokemon and Final Fantasy fall into? The only one that comes to mind is adventure, and that's not a very good fit. What genre do you consider these games?
        • I do consider them adventures. They continue where great games like Secret of the Monkey Island left off. They have some arcade elements, true, but if you think about it, I think you will find that they have more things in common with, say, old Sierra adventures than with pure RPGs. The Final Fantasy series is especially a good point to make since they are story based. Take out all the fighting and you have a pure, story based, adventure game.

          I don't mind the convention, usually, but it bothers me when peo

          • Ah...an intelligent poster. The gaming world needs more people like you.

            As for defining the genre...ask any PC gamer to name an RPG. I can almost guarantee that they won't mention FF or Pokemon. It seems to be an opinion held, for the most part, by console gamers.

            I realize I've gotten off-topic from my original post, but I still think that Pokemon is a very well done game. It's just not the only kind of RPG out there.

      • I believe you are taking a point of view that is slightly too purist for general convention. A role-playing game is, after all, a game where you take actions within the confines of a role. You must deal with the many issues that such a role would throw at you.

        For example, the player Red is a Pokemon trainer. He must deal with buying Poke Balls, dealing with trainers, and winning badges. He cannot be expected to achieve the presidency; that is not in his role.

        Agreeably, this definition is slightly broa

        • I don't understand your point. Perhaps mine was not clear enough. What I meant was that when faced with a particular problem in, say, Neverwinter Nights, you have to solve it according to what your character is, or where you want him/her to go. Do you want your character to be good or evil? A wizard or a tank? Solve the puzzle to get the item from the NPC or kill him? Etc. etc. I'm not very much into MMORPGs other than a spell of Dark Age of Camelot (which I enjoyed), but I don't agree with you. MMORPGs are

    • It's unfortunate that Nintendo killed the series' popularity through overexposure (the card game was a bit much).

      The TCG wasn't that bad.

      I did think, though, that the GameBoy game based on the TCG was a bit overboard... =/ I mean, it's one thing to make a pretty decent CRPG or a card game based on it, and another to make a game based on a card game based on another game.

      Bet they'll next make a card game based on the GB game based on the TCG based on the first GB game. Or at least agree to fund the d

  • last post!
    Baby Ruby [uklinux.net] says "bwarghhhhh!" [uklinux.net]

Slashdot Top Deals

"Once they go up, who cares where they come down? That's not my department." -- Werner von Braun

Close