113 réponses à ce sujet

[Ridwan]

Homebound wrote...

Kaiser Shepard wrote...

Ah yes, "Nintendo is doomed". It's not like that one's been thrown around on the net for at least two decades now or anything, no siree~

Its a 3pony race tbh. Nintendo always comes in last when it comes to consoles but last place in a game with 3 players isnt such a big deal until it is. Which I figure is next gen for nintendo.

True, except you know.. .with the NES, the SNES and the Wii...

*shakes my head*

[The Heretic of Time]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Just to adress those snips.  Pokemon already is a casual game, so... lolwut? 

It's no angry-birds or something your momma plays, so... lolwut?

It also already uses touch controls, thats the entire point of the DS.  Again, lolwut? 

Lolwut? It also uses physical buttons and two screens (which both are larger than a phone screen).

It would literally be no different on a phone. 

Lolwut? Yes it would.

And on a phone it would be far more accessable. 

Lolwut? No it wouldn't.

I wouldp lay it on a phone, not gonna carry around (or buy in the first place) another device just to play it. 

You wouldn't play it on a phone because it would suck on a phone. You don't want to buy a Nintendo 3DS? Well, touch luck for you, that means you're gonna miss out son.

As for the other stuff, why buy a nintendo by the same logic?  Its just a weak pc that does less stuff.  If you could play Nintendo games on PC wouldn't that be better?  I don't get how nintendo get a pass but others dont.  

Lolwut? Are you retarded or something? I love Nintendo consoles and handhelds because they AREN'T just weaker PCs. Nintendo devices are actually DIFFERENT from a PC or mobile phones that do DIFFERENT stuff, UNLIKE Sony and Microsoft who try to make their consoles more and more like PCs with each generation....

[Roflbox]

Doctor Moustache wrote...Pokemon already is a casual game,
so

lolwut?

[Sajuro]

Nintendo is only last in the race because while Sony and Microsoft are running, Nintendo is alternating between jogging and doing neat ass tricks for the spectators.

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

Current Nintendo is old generation, so... lolwut?

[Doctoglethorpe]

Responses in blooooooood. 

EDIT: ok wow I give up on trying to make all my parts red, editied 4
times they keep randomly not working.  Which parts are my responses should be
obvious enough so there it is.

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Just to adress those snips.  Pokemon already is a casual game, so... lolwut? 

It's no angry-birds or something your momma plays, so... lolwut?

Angry Birds is fun, and yes, its also casual. ] Thats not a bad thing, thats not a dis on the game, the mentality that callign a game casual is an insult is just... silly.

It also already uses touch controls, thats the entire point of the DS.  Again, lolwut? 

Lolwut? It also uses physical buttons and two screens (which both are larger than a phone screen).

Most of the buttons are made redundant by the touch controlls.  Two screens don't really add much to pokemon, basically just a ui screen on bottom.  Could easily be on a single screen and play the exact same, and no ds screens are not bigger then all phones.

It would literally be no different on a phone. 

Lolwut? Yes it would.

How?

And on a phone it would be far more accessable. 

Lolwut? No it wouldn't.

Again, how?  Waaaaaaay more people have smart phones then a DS, that is the definition of accessibility. 

I wouldp lay it on a phone, not gonna carry around (or buy in the first place) another device just to play it. 

You wouldn't play it on a phone because it would suck on a phone. You don't want to buy a Nintendo 3DS? Well, touch luck for you, that means you're gonna miss out son.

I still don't see how it would suck on a phone, they could replicate IDENTICLE gameplay on one, no problem.  You have yet to really explain why they couldn't.  "It doesn't have redundant buttons or a second screen that isn't nessisary" are not good reasons.  But yeah, I guess I will miss out.  Nintendo's real loss, I'd give them money but I can't. 

As for the other stuff, why buy a nintendo by the same logic?  Its just a weak pc that does less stuff.  If you could play Nintendo games on PC wouldn't that be better?  I don't get how nintendo get a pass but others dont.  

Lolwut? Are you retarded or something? I love Nintendo consoles and handhelds because they AREN'T just weaker PCs. Nintendo devices are actually DIFFERENT from a PC or mobile phones that do DIFFERENT stuff, UNLIKE Sony and Microsoft who try to make their consoles more and more like PCs with each generation....


How are they any differen't? 
Anything it can do PC can do better.  "It has a peripheral" what they
hell would stop them from releasing it for PC?  The tablet controller
isj ust that, a tablet controller, nothing unique there, other companies
have made them better already (and really, thats tablet screen is a
huge waste of time even nintendo hardly use it themselves).  Their
motion control is already replicated and improved on by both the other
consoles and PC.  I see no difference at all in hardware.  Its a weak
PC. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 15 juin 2013 - 06:29 .

[Doctoglethorpe]

Ravensword wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...


The very idea of pokemon on mobile phones is horrifying though. I would NOT, no, NEVER EVER want to see Pokemon turning into a casual mobile phone game that you have to play with crappy-ass touch-screen controls.

As for Nintendo's consoles. Well, I actually LIKE them, because they're DIFFERENT.

I don't give a f*ck about the PS4 and I don't give a f*ck about the Xbone because they're basically just wannabe-PCs, but less powerful and less capable than a real PC. Why waste money on a wannabe-PC if I already have a superior gaming-PC?

Just to adress those snips.  Pokemon already is a casual game, so... lolwut?  It also already uses touch controls, thats the entire point of the DS.  Again, lolwut?  It would literally be no different on a phone.  And on a phone it would be far more accessable.  I wouldp lay it on a phone, not gonna carry around (or buy in the first place) another device just to play it. 

As for the other stuff, why buy a nintendo by the same logic?  Its just a weak pc that does less stuff.  If you could play Nintendo games on PC wouldn't that be better?  I don't get how nintendo get a pass but others dont.  Nintendo on PC would be AMAZING. 

Lolwut? Oh, you. I think you're just saying that b/c you wanna play Nintendo games, but you don't wanna buy a Wii U or 3DS. Especially since you claim you used to be a [alleged] Nintendo fan.  Lolwut?

Um... yeah, thats exactly it.  I don't wnat to buy a $300 machine to play half a dozen games.  Sorry but no handful of games are worth that much, would be no different if it was sony or valve franchises. 

Now your implying because I don't have $300 to throw willy nilly that I surely never could of been a nintendo fan?  Son, NES, N64 and Gameboy was MY LIFE back in the day.  I never even had a ps1 or any sega consoles, first non-nintendo console I had was a ps2 half way through its generation and even then gamecube remained my primary platform.  Nintendo didn't lose me until Wii, and I even still have one of those it was only after I bought it that they lost my favour. 

[The Heretic of Time]

@Doctor Moustache:


For the love of god learn how to format your posts. I'm not going to respond in-depth to that confusing mess of a post of yours, no offense. So I'll keep it short:


1. I'm not dissing on casual games, I'm merely stating that Pokemon is not casual at all compared to the average games that come out on mobile phones. There is casual gaming, and then there is mobile phone gaming, which is a whole new league of uber-casual gaming.

2. Pokemon would most certainly not be more accessible on phones. Touch-screen controls on phones suck, unless you're playing point-and-click or very casual games that depend on touch-controls. Pokemon is not such a game.
The buttons and second screen on the Nintendo (3)DS are most certainly not redundant. Saying so shows how ignorant you are and it makes me wonder when you played Pokemon for the last time. You're clearly just pulling nonsense arguments out of your ass.
In terms of reaching the target audience, mobile phones are not the most accessible platform either. Pokemon is aimed at people of all ages, but mainly at kids. Kids don't have mobile phones.

3. Nintendo's hardware is unique and there are no other companies who have made better motion-controllers or better tablet-controllers. You're just spewing nonsense once more.

4. The reason why Nintendo does not release their hardware for PC is because the PC is not accessible for their target-audience, which is gamers of all ages, which include kids. Not to mention that Nintendo's experience is multiplayer family-gaming in the living-room. Clearly the PC is not the best platform for such an experience, it is in fact the WORST platform for such an experience.
The PC does not fit Nintendo's vision.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 15 juin 2013 - 09:55 .

[Doctoglethorpe]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

@Doctor Moustache:


For the love of god learn how to format your posts. I'm not going to respond in-depth to that confusing mess of a post of yours, no offense. So I'll keep it short:


1. I'm not dissing on casual games, I'm merely stating that Pokemon is not casual at all compared to the average games that come out on mobile phones. There is casual gaming, and then there is mobile phone gaming, which is a whole new league of uber-casual gaming.

2. Pokemon would most certainly not be more accessible on phones. Touch-screen controls on phones suck, unless you're playing point-and-click or very casual games that depend on touch-controls. Pokemon is not such a game.
The buttons and second screen on the Nintendo (3)DS are most certainly not redundant. Saying so shows how ignorant you are and it makes me wonder when you played Pokemon for the last time. You're clearly just pulling nonsense arguments out of your ass.
In terms of reaching the target audience, mobile phones are not the most accessible platform either. Pokemon is aimed at people of all ages, but mainly at kids. Kids don't have mobile phones.

3. Nintendo's hardware is unique and there are no other companies who have made better motion-controllers or better tablet-controllers. You're just spewing nonsense once more.

4. The reason why Nintendo does not release their hardware for PC is because the PC is not accessible for their target-audience, which is gamers of all ages, which include kids. Not to mention that Nintendo's experience is multiplayer family-gaming in the living-room. Clearly the PC is not the best platform for such an experience, it is in fact the WORST platform for such an experience.
The PC does not fit Nintendo's vision.

I tried to format it, blame bsn for not being able to handle it, like I said in my edit.

1.  I don't think you know what casual games are. 
2. I don't think you knwo what accessibility is.  And most things you do in pokemon can be done on the touch screen.  Maybe you don't know what redundant means either.
3.  False.  Move, kinect and hydra are all better motion controls.  I'm saying that technologically, your preference is subjective.  Razer also made a gamepad tablet attachment that is better then the wii u's controller.  again technologically, yoru preference is subjective.
4. PC is the most accessible system there is, everyone has one.  Kids have phones, their house hold probably has another console in it as well, or if not just more reason to pick another one or not require a seperate machine for specific games.  All platforms they could reach kids on. 

Said all I have to say, feel like im speaking to a wall. 

I'm a realist nintendo fan.  I have realist views, not stubborn conservative ones like you.  Thats all there is to it and were never going to agree. 

Modifié par Doctor Moustache, 15 juin 2013 - 11:11 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Doctor Moustache wrote...

1.  I don't think you know what casual games are. 
2. I don't think you knwo what accessibility is.  And most things you do in pokemon can be done on the touch screen.  Maybe you don't know what redundant means either.
3.  False.  Move, kinect and hydra are all better motion controls.  I'm saying that technologically, your preference is subjective.  Razer also made a gamepad tablet attachment that is better then the wii u's controller.  again technologically, yoru preference is subjective.
4. PC is the most accessible system there is, everyone has one.  Kids have phones, their house hold probably has another console in it as well, or if not just more reason to pick another one or not require a seperate machine for specific games.  All platforms they could reach kids on. 

1. I'm a game-design student and (indie) game developer. I'm fairly sure I have a better grasp of the term than you do.

2. LOL, meaningless non-arguments such as "I dont think yuo know what [insert blank"] means" won't get you very far. I advice you to kee your baseless assumptions to yourself.
That said, how about you enlighten me and tell me why you think physical buttons and a second screen are redundant? If they are redundant, why does a Playstation dualshock controller have buttons and a touch-screen?
Also, tell me how you would create a grid-based top-down world in which you can move freely (on the grid) on a touch-screen-only mobile phone, without using crappy controls such as a fake on-screen d-pad that will take up half of the screen.

3. False, false and false. Razer's tablet is not even an attachment by the way, it's an actual seperate handheld gaming device, and it sucks (spoken from hands-on experience). Wii-motion-plus and a nunchuck are still the best motion-control ascessiores and the WiiU tablet is still the only proper tablet-controller for console-gaming.

4. Everyone has a PC, not everyone has a GAMING PC, and most certainly not everyone has a GAMING PC in the LIVING ROOM, which is the ideal place for motion-controlled multiplayer games.
The PC is also by far the LEAST accessible platform there is. But I don't think you know what "accessible" means, or "consumer-friendly" for that matter.
As I said, Nintendo is aimed at FAMILY gaming, meaning mostly KIDS, PARENTS and CASUAL GAMERS. Do you honestly think they know how to build a GAMING PC and how to install one in the living room? LOL!
Also, you think that 6 to 12 years old kids have mobile phones with internet access? LOLWUT?
Again, and I suggest you read this carefully; the PC does not fit Nintendo's vision.

Said all I have to say, feel like im speaking to a wall. 

The feeling is mutual. Except that a wall is at least quet and doesn't spew ignorant nonsense, so I suppose speaking to a wall is actually better than speaking to you.

I'm a realist nintendo fan.  I have realist views

LMAO!  No, you're an ingorant person who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about and who got all his "facts" wrong. 

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 16 juin 2013 - 01:58 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Filament wrote...

So why does Skyward Sword support 1080p when it can't even be utilized on the console it was made for?

What are you talking about? What do you mean with "Skyward Sword supports 1080p"? Are you talking about an emulated Skyward Sword on an emulator on the PC? In that case, it's the emulator that actually is capable of rendering the game at higher resolutions than the Wii itself can.

Not all Wii games will be displayed properly when upscaled to a higher resolution on the PC, but Skyward Sword looks gorgeous and beautiful when upscaled to 1080p on the PC.

[The Heretic of Time]

Filament wrote...

I was asking why the game data has sharper textures available that it doesn't use which seems to be implied by being able to play Skyward Sword in 1080p when the Wii only supports standard resolution.

Texture resolutions are not related or directly linked to display resolutions.

The emulated version of Skyward Sword on the PC has no different textures than the Wii version. That said, the textures do look better, sharper and more clear when emulated on a PC due to anisotrophic-filtering, which is a feature that isn't used by the Wii (or any current-gen console for that matter).

I did notice that some visual effects in Skyward Sword look significantly better on the PC than on the Wii, such as the depth-of-field, that really makes the game look like a beautiful painting on the PC, while it makes the game look like a blurry mess on the Wii.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 16 juin 2013 - 01:31 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Filament wrote...

 I see, that's... interesting. I should look into that. 

Not sure what to do for the IR sensor/beacon thingie, though. Using candles seems kinda janky.

http://www.amazon.co...d/dp/B002E1MLR8

You're welcome.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 16 juin 2013 - 03:10 .

[Cirram55]

^ Yeah, saying something like that is utter nonsense. With each generation it gets even harder to train those freaking monsters.
Just because a game can be played casually (like not caring to EV/IV your pokémon) it doesn't make it casual. There's a whole lot of depth to each game of the series if that's what you're looking for, if not the game is relatively easy (even though BW and BW2 could be a pain in the ass).

[The Hierophant]

^True, especially when you're looking to train the best Pokemon for it's species. It's important to have knowledge on breeding, experience gain ratios, Effort values, and Individual values as defeating certain pokemon will determine your stat gain on level up.

I stopped playing Pokemon 2 generations ago because it's stressful (OCD about stat gains) to the point that my hairline started to recede like Lebron James. 3 years later and my hairline is back to normal now. (lol nah, but i did quit 2 generations ago because it's stressful)

[The Heretic of Time]

Let's be fair here though, Pokemon is easy as f*ck if you just use only 1 pokemon through the entire game (your starter). I can easily beat Pokemon Red in under 4 hours with just using Blastoise.

[Chromie]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Let's be fair here though, Pokemon is easy as f*ck if you just use only 1 pokemon through the entire game (your starter). I can easily beat Pokemon Red in under 4 hours with just using Blastoise.

Its the post game content that is challenging. Battle Tower and all that stuff. Online pvp is impossible to get into at times even.

Roflbox wrote...

Doctor Moustache wrote...Pokemon already is a casual game,
so

lolwut?

^ so not casual ^

Modifié par Skelter192, 17 juin 2013 - 01:05 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Skelter192 wrote...

Its the post game content that is challenging. Battle Tower and all that stuff. Online pvp is impossible to get into at times even.

That is true. Without a well-balanced team of EV-trained pokemon you're not going to get far in competitive online pvp. Competitive pvp in pokemon is pretty damn hardcore.

[Arcadian Legend]

Indeed, I've been down that road before and if you aren't fully prepared it isn't a pretty experience.

[Chromie]

Arcadian Legend wrote...

Indeed, I've been down that road before and if you aren't fully prepared it isn't a pretty experience.

Smogon University and Nugget Bridge use to rule my life.

Really anyone who says Pokémon is for casuals has never tried a battle against a person.


I remember when I was younger and thinking legendaries were the best Pokémon. Silly me.

Modifié par Skelter192, 17 juin 2013 - 03:29 .