Yes! Yes! Gomily is going to address me sternly! [ignored in the rest of the post] ...
I was actually just reading a Valve Doc where they talked about how they designed the TF2 characters so they could be distinguished at a glance.
They love throwing you to death with that fact when you go through the Dev comments on TF2 and L4D (last two I remembered). Silhouettes everywhere!
Many of the characters that developed from 8 bit characters are iconic because they were limited by the forced design simplicity of the medium. The Final Fantasy characters are starting to be approached less like cartoons and more like actors wearing costumes. Like I said, trade off, iconic nature for realism.
This is true, I completely agree with it. Awesomely detailed characters can be great. Pokemon however is still a sprite game, so the designs should remain iconic (the sprites are 96x96 or something like that, though) seeing as crazy details will just clutter it all up.
Nintendo is letting the furries ruin things by pandering to them and there's nothing I can do to stop them. See Lucario, Gardevoir, this new thing. Imho the average quality of designs has gone down constantly. This just proves it even more.
Seriously. Furries are a niche audience that's even smaller than anime fans. Do you really think that those jizz-stained dollars are so important to Nintendo that the creation of any anthropomorphic pokemon is trying to "pander" to furries?
Was Disney's Robin Hood pandering to furries? Were the Looney Toons? Were the ancient Egyptians trying to come up with gods that would appeal to their population of animal-fuckers so they would be more worshiped?
Do I draw anthropomorphic animals because I want furries to look at me? No thanks. Many of us just like humanoid animals because we think the idea is fun and cool. This and great battle-versatility are why I think Lucario is badass. Those things aren't made FOR furries, furries just stick their furry cocks into everything and THINK that it was made for them.
It's one thing if you don't like the design. But if you don't want things "ruined" by furries, then stop thinking like a furry.
I think that some FFXII characters are attractive, in the hot way, where FFI does not really do it for me. Gameplay of the two aside, you are sacrificing iconic-ness for realism
There's a place for both iconic and complex character designs in gaming.
The former, however, lend themselves better to the game element. Gaming is, effectively, rules-mediated abstraction. Icons sort of quantize the concepts interacting within the abstraction, and iconic design, in my opinion, enhances the players' ability to analyze and react.
Pokemon, gameplay aside, should probably be a more iconic game. Kids recognize pokemon from silhouettes. Icons fighting icons. Extremely distinctive game elements. Paper rock Scizor. The last thing Pokemon needs is a realistic pikachu covered in belts.
Do you really think that those jizz-stained dollars are so important to Nintendo that the creation of any anthropomorphic pokemon is trying to "pander" to furries?
Yes.
Was Disney's Robin Hood pandering to furries?
Yes.
Were the Looney Toons?
YES.
Were the ancient Egyptians trying to come up with gods that would appeal to their population of animal-fuckers so they would be more worshiped?
YES!
Do I draw anthropomorphic animals because I want furries to look at me?
YEEEEEEEES!
It's one thing if you don't like the design. But if you don't want things "ruined" by furries, then stop thinking like a furry.
You seem to misunderstand. THIS IS THE INTERNET. THE PLACE WHERE PEOPLE ARE WRONG (and yes, I don't like the design of the two, the "OMG FURRIES" is just for silly, and thank you for your perfectly exploitable post)
So we'll have to wait for Pokemon Gray this time? No wait, it can't be that obvious, I mean, Gold and Silver were followed by Crystal, instead of Platinum, and visa versa.
I guarantee you that Nintendo will localize these as Pokemon Light and Pokemon Dark - I cannot see them releasing games in America as Black and White. Not that I agree with that, mind, but it fits with Nintendo's track record.
When have they done something like that? Besides, there have been other games with versions in America named Black and White (the Megaman Battle Network series springs to mind).
When have they done something like that? Besides, there have been other games with versions in America named Black and White (the Megaman Battle Network series springs to mind).
By that I just mean straying away from anything that might stir controversy (actual controversy, not controversy in the sense of the DS or Wii's introduction) - the example that springs to mind is when kids argue about which version is better it'll come down to "White is better!" "No Black!" While rational people will know that they're just video games using colors to differentiate themselves, there will always be the ones who immediately jump off the deep end and fly into a frenzy of "Look at what Nintendo is teaching these kids!"
You're right about the Mega Man Battle Network games, I'd forgotten about those (never really was a fan myself), but the difference is that those were Capcom games, not Nintendo, and (as far as I know, I may be wrong here) Mega Man isn't as huge with kids as Pokemon is. Perhaps track record was the wrong word to use, I guess image would be more apt. Nintendo itself (first party) always seems to do all it can to steer clear of real controversy, though if I'm forgetting some example to the contrary then by all means - I personally hope they don't change the names.
I'm hoping they say something about improving the online or Pokemon breeding and training systems. The current wild speculation is that the black and white colors reflect a revamp of the series. I personally think it'll be about 100 new Pokemon and some new moves because that's the bare minimum they have to do.
More info on Black and White have been leaked. It looks like the graphics got a complete overhaul and that there are full bodied back sprites. With the advent of those, I hope that they will actually have the Pokemon actually attack each other.
I agree, the city shot does look pretty cool. I hope that these new games will have a lot of big, scenic vistas like that where you really have this feeling that you're in some massive environment. However, I do have to say that while the graphics have been improved, it doesn't seem to be by much, at least to me. It just seems like they changed the viewing angle to be lower so that you see more of each object, and so it looks like a much more substantial graphical update than it is. Take the shot of standing in front of the house, for instance, or the Pokemon Center - that looks very similar to what we've already got in Heart Gold and Soul Silver, just with a lower camera angle. These are just magazine scans, mind, so I may eat my words when better quality screenshots come out, but that's just how I see it now.
There's some city movement. It looks good, but I don't know how easy it would be to actually get around.
Another thing that's been announced is that the GSC legendary trio that are given at a movie will have effects in the new games. This is a sure sign that BW will be the same old same old. I can still hope they change up the breeding and training mechanics.
Also, the region is apparently called Isshu and it is separated from the other regions and can only be accessed by boat or plane (this was implied by the magazine scan) and the playable characters are older than they usually are in the games. Maybe Pokemon trainers are now becoming teenagers?
Why ar the girl trainers always cool, and the boy trainers are always doofuses?
The girl trainer in HG/SS was lame. At least the boy trainer doesn't have a freaking beret in this game, though. To be honest, I really don't care about what the trainers look like. Their sprites are so small when you're walking around and you don't see them for very long in battle, so it really doesn't matter to me.
That being said, the new boy trainer looks like a combination of Red and Ash.
The girl trainer in HG/SS was lame. At least the boy trainer doesn't have a freaking beret in this game, though. To be honest, I really don't care about what the trainers look like. Their sprites are so small when you're walking around and you don't see them for very long in battle, so it really doesn't matter to me.
I'm a Pokemon Adventures guy, so the trainers are more important than the Pokemans.
I'm a Pokemon Adventures guy, so the trainers are more important than the Pokemans.
I love Pokemon Adventures, but I was definitely arguing on the perspective of the games. Nintendo is definitely just making the trainers look as generic as possible in an attempt to get more people to attach to them. I just don't understand why they don't let us make our own trainers. Oh wait, it's Nintendo. That's what they do.
Comments
Was Disney's Robin Hood pandering to furries? Were the Looney Toons? Were the ancient Egyptians trying to come up with gods that would appeal to their population of animal-fuckers so they would be more worshiped?
Do I draw anthropomorphic animals because I want furries to look at me? No thanks. Many of us just like humanoid animals because we think the idea is fun and cool. This and great battle-versatility are why I think Lucario is badass. Those things aren't made FOR furries, furries just stick their furry cocks into everything and THINK that it was made for them.
It's one thing if you don't like the design. But if you don't want things "ruined" by furries, then stop thinking like a furry.
The former, however, lend themselves better to the game element. Gaming is, effectively, rules-mediated abstraction. Icons sort of quantize the concepts interacting within the abstraction, and iconic design, in my opinion, enhances the players' ability to analyze and react.
Pokemon, gameplay aside, should probably be a more iconic game. Kids recognize pokemon from silhouettes. Icons fighting icons. Extremely distinctive game elements. Paper rock Scizor. The last thing Pokemon needs is a realistic pikachu covered in belts.
Sorry, I just had to make the joke. Well, I'm definitely going to get Black (as I can't stand White).
You're right about the Mega Man Battle Network games, I'd forgotten about those (never really was a fan myself), but the difference is that those were Capcom games, not Nintendo, and (as far as I know, I may be wrong here) Mega Man isn't as huge with kids as Pokemon is. Perhaps track record was the wrong word to use, I guess image would be more apt. Nintendo itself (first party) always seems to do all it can to steer clear of real controversy, though if I'm forgetting some example to the contrary then by all means - I personally hope they don't change the names.
There's some city movement. It looks good, but I don't know how easy it would be to actually get around.
Another thing that's been announced is that the GSC legendary trio that are given at a movie will have effects in the new games. This is a sure sign that BW will be the same old same old. I can still hope they change up the breeding and training mechanics.
Also, the region is apparently called Isshu and it is separated from the other regions and can only be accessed by boat or plane (this was implied by the magazine scan) and the playable characters are older than they usually are in the games. Maybe Pokemon trainers are now becoming teenagers?
That being said, the new boy trainer looks like a combination of Red and Ash.