[QUOTE="Vundi"]

I like the games personally. I'm just tired of the whole "buy three games and import from the three older versions just to get all 4 zillion pokemon we've come up with" idea. I'd like to see a fully realized Wii (or even DS)RPG pokemon game in which you have a huge chunk of land to explore and you can actually catch all pokemon in THE SAME GAME! I know, it's a novel idea but I like to think outside the box. Realistically, who trades pokemon with anyone but themselves and who took advantage of the global ttraining center in the last games? Not many.

Calvin079

I like that idea. That is part of my idea for "the final pokemon game." My idea is to make all reigons explorable in one gameand all pokemoncatchable.Hey Game Freak! Listen to the REAL gamers!!!!!!! These are people who pay for your living! Pokemon is so boring. Nothing has changed (except the graphics and online play). Literally nothing has changed

No kidding. I can't be the only one who thinks the whole "trading between 3 or 4 games" thing is getting a bit dated. I don't know that it even needs to be the last game of the series. I just think it's time for a fully realized, stand alone pokemon RPG. Something fresh and exciting.

Sorry dude. I had to vote for Link. Is it really a contest anyways. I know that this Cloud guy has a loyal following but it Link for God's sake. There can only be one reasonable outcome.

I like the games personally. I'm just tired of the whole "buy three games and import from the three older versions just to get all 4 zillion pokemon we've come up with" idea. I'd like to see a fully realized Wii (or even DS)RPG pokemon game in which you have a huge chunk of land to explore and you can actually catch all pokemon in THE SAME GAME! I know, it's a novel idea but I like to think outside the box. Realistically, who trades pokemon with anyone but themselves and who took advantage of the global ttraining center in the last games? Not many.

[QUOTE="Magnol49"]Sure. Some of my favorite games are shooters. (Doom 2, Half-life 2, Bioshock). I really wanted to like Borderlands. I paid $60 for it after all. I thought the art style was great but something about it just didn't grab me and several hours into it I finally accepted that I wasn't enjoying it at all. And this is from someone who finds something to like and keep me playing in many games most people would consider 'bad' games. Cool that you (and many others it would seem) were able to have fun with it - eh...I tried. Didn't happen.muthsera666

That must be a blanket warning. The older projection TVs are the ones you really had to worry about. On any decent, modernLCD, screen burn is pretty much a non issue. Who made your TV and how old is it?

Pokemon Stadium. Those games were total ass.

Of course it can be done but I doubt it will be at this point. It's just a sign of the times. Plenty of great first-person shooters were made before online multiplayer really hit big (on consoles anyways) but offline multiplayer has been a part of shooters almost since the begining. Now that consoles have embraced online play and gamers have in turn embraced the opion to play online and look at it as a major purchase point and reason to keep playing the game, it's going to be a part of probably every shooter from here on out. That's not to say people dont play the campaign or enjoy the story they tell but as far as actual play time, that mode is such a small part of the game. Most shooters have anywhere between 5 to 15 hours of story mode but people can play multiplayer for months or even years. You could make the argument that people could play a great story for months and that may be so but if given an option people aren't going to play the same predictable campaign over and over again when they could be playing a multiplayer mode that is always different and always challenging. It's a great way to get a lot more out of a game.

I am one of those gamer's who absoultely simply REFUSE to play any mode on any game that gives you an option of HARD, or VERY HARD no matter what the cost because I know that I will not have the patience or temper for it, especially if I keep dying. So am I the only gamer out there who only enjoys to play the game on Easy/Medium difficulty no matter what the cost?

ShadowxGamer

I usually play games on normal first and if it's good, then I might go through again on a harder difficulty. The exception to this is shooters. I almost always play those on a harder difficulty right away because I think they tend to be a bit too easy on the default setting.

Really it comes down to the individual game. Every developer has their own idea of how hard normal is going to be. I've played games on Hard that were super easy and I've played games on normal that were f'n impossible. you really have to take every game on its own merits. Either way you look at it, it's nice to have the option for those who want it.

I don't really mind fighting previous bosses. I just hate when the final boss is a total pushover.

So did you hear? The five new MW2 maps (3 new and 2 old) is going to cost 1,200 MS points. Fifteen dollars?? Seriously?? I guess earning over $1,000,000,000 (that's one BILLION dollars) wasn't enough. I'm thinking of organizing a revolt. That is absolutely rediculous.Legolas_Katarn

I don't understand the problem with this. Companies have been charging 800 for three, why not 1200 for five? I guess everyone is ignoring for some reason that Gears of War, Halo, Ghost Recon, etc all remade maps form their old games (hell, in Halo 3's case they made them even worse) and keep thinking that the old maps should be free. What they earned does not matter.

People that make maps still need to be paid. If you made more money at your job one year than another I assume that does not mean that you would be ok working for free the next.