Empoleon was fine and the Steel type Empoleon's Steel type benefited it more than people give it credit for due to being weak to both of the other starters (which had to be an oversight on Game Freak's part). It has good Special Attack and Special Defense and decent Attack and Defense and a crap load of resistances (as well as having Water's weakness to Grass neutralized). Really, like most of the other starters, it isn't something that hardcore metagamers would take seriously (of course, the only starter most of them take seriously is Swampert due to it's Water/Ground typing), but is still a solid Pokemon to use in most parties. Also, I don't think x4 weakness is something Game Freak is worried about, after all, Swampert has a x4 weakness to Grass. The only three second types I can see them doing for the starters is Psychic, Dark and Fighting because it gives an opportunity to balance the starters in terms of typing. On top of the fact that it helps players, especially new players, build a balanced team and the starters have always been meant to be a strong center point for your team. Especially when you consider that five of the six types we're looking at (Fire, Water, Psychic, Dark, Fighting) are extremely common types to be used. Also, where are the rumors of Froakie being Ice coming from? I've seen that floating around and I don't really get why.
Well, rumors are saying: Fennekin: Fire/Psychic Froakie: Water/Fighting Chespin: Grass/Dark I think this would work really well. Personal bias against Psychic types (as I want a Fennekin to call Mozilla) would prefer something like this: Fennekin: Fire/Dark, could work with it being a fox. Froakie: Water/Psychic, the design looks like its wearing glasses, after all. Chespin: Grass/Fighting, Similar to Tepig and Torchic, it could evolve from cute and harmless looking to a badass fighter. Of course, if Fennekin turns out to be Psychic, I can grab a Froakie to fill my Water type and Fighting type needs and continue to use a Typhlosion like I have been since Diamond. Of course, if Game Freak continues to insist on retreading the Fire/Fighting ground: Fennekin: Fire/Fighting Froakie: Water/Dark Chespin: Grass/Psychic That last one is unlikely based on the designs (even if it does worry me that I think that Fennekin looks like it could evolve into a FIghting type), but I had to include it for cynicism's sake. Ultimately, any of these combinations would work because Fighting/Dark/Psychic is a triangle separate from Fire/Grass/Water and would allow for what Gen IV was probably trying to, but failed due to Empoleon ultimately being weak to both Infernape and Torterra. Regardless, Gen IV remains my favorite set of starters in terms of game mechanics, entirely BECAUSE of the fact that all three got second types.
For the most part, it did. It's like an HD rerelease on XBL or PSN, fundamentally the same game with most of the same assets, just with things a bit more cleaned up and polished.
Skyrim is one of those games where if your computer can run it sufficiently, there is no reason to get it on consoles, not just because of mods, but also because the game is flat-out better on PC. The same could be said of games like Deus Ex: Human Revolution and Far Cry 3.
Are you ****ing kidding me? An updated N64 game? Really? Take a look at the character models in this, then look at OoT. These are not as blocky as the OoT models. OoT textures are muddier, while these appear far more crisp (they also look flat, but they're still cleaner looking). The draw distance is better. To say that this looks worse than an N64 game is laughable. It looks "blocky" because of the art style, which is clearly meant to be an attempt to recreate what they were doing with the previous games. Not to mention that we're looking at the first screenshots from the first trailer and that it looks much better in motion than it does in the screen shots. Also, minor thing to point out, but this is also Game Freak's first game on 3DS hardware.
I ****ing called it. EDIT: Also, I'm conflicted on the starters. Not because I don't like them, quite the contrary, this is the first time I've had good first impressions on them since Gen I, but because Fennekin is a fox and a Fire type and I want one to call it Mozilla... but then I wouldn't be able to fit Typhlosion into my party and Typhlosion's my favorite Pokemon and I haven't gone without one since Diamond.
And that's about all that's good about XIII and XIII-2.
...
Regardless of truth behind this, it is apparently affecting Gamestop stock. Of course, if Sony does do something effective to block used games, they're going to completely **** up the collector market.
It's gone now, but the thing about Wikipedia is that it can be edited by anyone with no citation. As such, it was probably removed due to lack of citation.
You don't pay much attention to most of my posts, do you? YEEEEAAAH, any interface that reminds me of Windows 8's Metro interface is not what I'd call "fine." You realize that you just made the exact same point I made, right? Mainstream is not specialized is what you seem to miss. Except that Playstation IS an established brand. Sony has been known for making consoles since 1996 and they advertised the PSP as a portable Playstation. Hell, even if you want to argue just handhelds, the Vita is STILL on an established brand as a successor to the PSP. The Vita's problem is not that it isn't an established brand, it's that customers have no idea what Sony is doing with the thing. You're missing my point. The idea that smart phones will eliminate the market for handhelds is absurd. The most popular games on smart phones are games like Angry Birds (which, ironically, is also on 3DS), which no one is going to say is a great gaming experience. It's just a game that people use to waste a few minutes at a time. What you're arguing is that cheap casual games like Angry Birds is going to compete with and defeat a dedicated gaming platform, which is a completely absurd notion. Not to mention the fact that smart phones are not sold based on their gaming capabilities, but on the fact that they're phones with great multimedia features, which includes gaming. After that said price drop, the 3DS sales picked up more than significantly and the system has sold millions of units and sales continue to be steady. Hell, even when it first came out, sales weren't half as bad as people make them out to be as they still sold 3 million of the 5 million units they expected. Nintendo's biggest mishandling on the 3DS is that they assumed it would take off as well as, if not better than, the DS. And I said that Steam was better than PSN, what's your point?
Generally, these "major announcements" have been main series entries, so we're looking at one of two possibilities: 1. Gen V remakes of Ruby/Sapphire, which I doubt for a variety of reasons based on the history of remakes in the Pokemon series. In Generations III and IV, there are a large number of parallels between them and Generations I and II, respectively. The largest parallel, however, is setting. Obviously, I'm not talking about region setting as the only two regions with more than significant similarities are Kanto and Johto, which makes sense as they're both based on parts of Tokyo (hell, the Radio Tower pretty much IS the Tokyo Tower). Generations I and III take place around the same time, which is approximately three years prior to Gen II, which takes place around the same time as Gen IV. Gen V takes place an unknown amount of time after Gen II, for simplicity's sake, I personally assume two years. Not only are there far fewer parallels to Gen III in Gen V than there are between Gen I and Gen III as well as Gen II and Gen IV, you could find probably just as many to Gen IV and likely more to Gen I. Not to mention that there's no need for it. FireRed/LeafGreen and Emerald were made to allow players to finish the Pokedex, which was impossible with Ruby/Sapphire alone due to the lack of Johto Pokemon, which were heavily featured in endgame content in FireRed/LeafGreen and Emerald. So, the primary purpose of FireRed/LeafGreen was to make a large step to allowing players to actually complete the Pokedex by adding all of Gen I (obvious) and a large part of Gen II. Furthermore, HeartGold/SoulSilver had similar purpose and were made to eliminate the reliance on the Gen III games for Pokedex completion. As it stands, as far as I can tell, the entire Pokedex can be completed between HeartGold/Soul Silver, Black/White and Black/White 2. Fan demand was also part of the motivation for Gen II remakes as Gold/Silver remain fan favorites to this day and many fans wanted to play them again, but couldn't due to the very common problem of dying save batteries. The only reason I can think of to do Gen III remakes outside of series history (which has been thrown out the window with Black/White 2 anyway) is to end reliance on Gen IV for Pokedex completion. However, cross-generation Pokedex completion is clearly not as much of a priority for Game Freak as cross-platform Pokedex completion (see: Gen II only being completable by connecting to Gen I and Game Freak's effort to remove reliance on the GBA games). Gen III remakes are not nearly as demanded by fans as Gen II remakes were because, whether Gen III fans like it or not, most fans see Ruby/Sapphire as the lowest point in the series due to the removal of some key features from Gen II (most conspicuously: the time system). Really, if you ask me, Black/White 2 took the place of both a Gen V third version and a Gen III remake. 2. Gen VI games. This is what I think is the more likely scenario for several reasons. First, the timing is right. We're at a bit of a limbo with the series at the moment where we don't know what's coming next to the point where some fans are actually speculating the completely absurd idea that the series is done with... despite the money printing nature of the franchise. Beyond this, I've been seeing some people point out speculative parallels between the current state of Gen V and the state of previous generations when a new generation was announced. Personally, if they are Gen III remakes, I'll probably buy one and enjoy it while eagerly awaiting Gen VI as while I agree with the people that say that Gen III was the lowest point in the series, Ruby/Sapphire was in no way a bad game. Also, I want to see Game Freak do something to give me an incentive to buy both versions. Parallel stories, perhaps?
You have no idea what "niche" means, do you? "Casual" gamers is a far larger market than "hardcore" gamers. Nintendo's success with a mainstream market is proof enough of this. Hell, historically, handhelds have had more mainstream appeal than consoles and, as should be blatantly obvious, Nintendo remains the only company to have consistent significant success in the handheld market, so I think it's a safe bet to say that Nintendo knows what they're doing with the mainstream. Call of Duty targets "dedicated gamers?" That's news to me. I mean, it's not like it's the current big blockbuster shooter that non-gamers buy, then effectively glue to their consoles. Also, you CAN'T be serious implying that "dedicated gamers" only play shooters. That is completely absurd. Ignoring that particular idiocy, I could make this exact same argument with any console. Here, watch: XBox 360: Casual gamers: Kinect Hardcore gamers: X-COM, Borderlands Shooter fans: Gears of War, Halo, Call of Duty RPG fans: Lost Odyssey, Mass Effect Wii: Casual gamers: Wii Sports Hardcore gamers: No More Heroes, Mad World Shooter fans: Red Steel 2, The Conduit RPG fans: The Last Story, Xenoblade Chronicles The PSN hacking fiasco would beg to differ. Not to mention that the free online play is, while by no means a bad service and I do applaud Sony's dedication to keeping the PSN free, actually less stable and generally inferior to other services (and isn't really anything special as PC gamers have had free online play since the 1980s), Playstation Plus is a pay service that does little outside of provide "free" games (though considering the number of games and the quality of games, I can't argue with the value of the service) and handheld and console interactivity isn't anything special and Nintendo has been doing it since the SNES days. That IS actually a pretty nice deal, but it highlights one of the Vita's biggest issues: Almost all of what it can do can also be done by the PS3, which eliminates any real reason for an existing PS3 user to get a Vita. Getting both versions of a game is an awesome bonus if you already have both products (and remains the only reason I would ever use that feature as I would never buy two copies of the same game to play concurrently), but is not much of a selling point, as Sony is slowly realizing by the less than enthusiastic customer response to this feature. Some examples, please. Sony has a habit of treating their customers quite poorly, likely due to their delusion that their the best company on any market. As I mentioned earlier, the PSN hacking fiasco is one of the best recent examples of Sony not giving two shits. They let their customers hanging long after **** broke loose and tried to cover up everything they did wrong. And don't tell me that the free games they gave out as a response justified their poor treatment of the situation as that was simply excellent damage control and they still let things get out of hand in the first place. I don't think anyone is going to argue with this one.
The most mismanaged handheld in the last decade says hi. Translation: "WAAAAH!!! Nintendo isn't pandering to ME!!! WAAAAAH!!!" Look past your bias and you'll see that Nintendo is doing quite well.The 3DS and Wii U may not be where they wanted them, but it is absurd to say that they're doing poorly, especially when you consider the fact that their least successful consoles, the N64 and Gamecube, were still successful enough to make profits and Nintendo has never been in a truly dire situation. Their handhelds are the only consistently successful line of handhelds in gaming history and their consoles are always at least modestly successful. Anyway, to answer the OP, Sony had a rough generation compared to the two before, but, really, that should have been expected from the moment they announced the PS3, when they justified the second most expensive console in gaming history by citing customer loyalty. They let their ego grow too much with their massive success with the PS1 and PS2 and even the modest early success with the PSP, which is more than can be said for literally every other company that tried to compete with Nintendo in the handheld arena. The PS3 may not be nearly as successful as Sony wanted and expected, but it is still very successful. The Vita may be absurdly mismanaged to the point where no one seems to have any idea what Sony's going to do with, including Sony themselves, but it is hardly killing them. Hurting them? Oh yeah, you can't botch a hardware launch that badly and not be hurt, but it is absurd to say that it is their death. Not to mention Sony's other branches which are just as, if not more, successful than Sony Computer Entertainment. Their movie branch is one of the world's biggest studios, their music branch is one of the top record companies and their large variety of other consumer electronics are generally fine products that continue to make Sony money. So, really, Sony's only real problem is their ego and the fact that they sometimes treat their customers rather poorly.
