Good lord : an 18 year old with lame signatures,cracky avatars and bad taste.
Life Success Ratio = 2%
(that only includes winning a match agehnst friends on Pokemon Colosseum.)
Good lord : an 18 year old with lame signatures,cracky avatars and bad taste.
Life Success Ratio = 2%
(that only includes winning a match agehnst friends on Pokemon Colosseum.)
if i remember some kid’s weird project report on the history of pokemon, the game was thought up by some guy in the US, but nobody liked his idea so he sold it to the japanese.
Glad you’re not refering to me =D
If I had said 11 year old tho…
?_?
[quote=“GehnTheBerserker”]
[quote=“Abadd”]My point was that if something is meant to be a completely commercial product, wouldn’t it be in their best interest to market the crap out of it and make it a massive cultural phenomenon? To me, what you guys are describing as “over-commercialized” as it applies to Pokemon sounds like “astounding commercial success.”
Maybe it’s just me.
How about this… what do you mean when you say “over-commercialized”? It’s not like it started off as an art project that was meant to speak to the human condition or something. It was a guy’s idea for a toy, and they ran with it. And it sold really well.
?[/quote]
Mumei used the expresion over-commercialized because perhaps he actually liked the anime but thought that the whole Nintendo deal and all the toys and whatnot were crap.
You can over commercial something that is already commercial.IN fact that’s thw whole kind of thing you can over commercialize since to over commercialize you need to be commercialize in the beginning.[/quote]
You are certainly the smart one, aren’t you? =)
Yes, the games were good.
The lunch boxes, movies, cartoon, stickers, cards, underwear, t-shirts, shorts, and whatever else I didn’t mention sucked.
But they made Nintendo money, and I suppose that is all they cared about. =)
On a side note, Pokemon is Nintendo’s second biggest franchise and currently their best-selling one:
First, obviously, is Mario:
Super Mario Bros NES 40.24
Super Mario World SNES 20.61
Super Mario Land GB 18.14
Super Mario Bros 3 NES 17.28
Super Mario 64 N64 11.91
Super Mario Land 2 GB 11.18
Super Mario Allstars SNES 10.55
Super Mario Bros 2 NES 7.46
Super Mario Land 3: Wario Land GB 5.19
Super Mario Bros DX GB 5.07
Super Mario Advance GBA 4.41
Super Mario Advance 2 GBA 4.36
Super Mario Sunshine GC 4.19
Super Mario Bros 2 JP NES 2.65
Super Mario Advance 4 GBA 2.59
Super Mario Advance 3 GBA 2.15
For a total of 167.98 million copies sold over the last ~ 20 years.
Pokemon’s sales thusfar…
Pokemon Red/Blue/Green GB 29.0
Pokemon Gold/Silver GBC 23.0
Pokemon Yellow GB 15.0
Pokemon Ruby / Sapphire GBA 12.78
Pokemon Crystal GBC 9.0
Pokemon Stadium N64 5.46
Pokemon Pinball GB 5.31
Pokemon Trading Card GB 3.70
Pokemon Snap N64 3.63
Pokemon Stadium 2 N64 2.54
Pokemon Stadium JP N64 1.37
Pokemon Pinball: Ruby Sapphire GBA 1.09
For a total of 111.88 million so far.
The first thing that strikes me about that list is:
How in the hell did Pokemon Snap sell 3.63 million copies? >_<
Regarding Gehn’s comments on the games itself, they show mainly ignorance, in my humble opinion.
The games can be beaten easily and are kiddy to a fault - I can agree with this. The fun comes if you have people to battle against and people who are good. Play online on RSBot (just Google it if you want to try it) and try to win a single battle. I can guarantee you that you will not unless you get someone who absolutely sucks.
The games are easy to get into and are incredibly easy to beat the main game, but they have a lot of depth to them.
I don’t believe that’s correct. I believe the creator was Japanese, and he was nearly bankrupt when he got the idea sold. I bet he isn’t bankrupt now!
No ignorance here since I did try them.At least the GB ones.I dind’t like them that much.
But they reason why I say they suck is the very fact they are based on Pokemon not the actual gameplay.
[quote=“GehnTheBerserker”]
No ignorance here since I did try them.At least the GB ones.I dind’t like them that much.
But they reason why I say they suck is the very fact they are based on Pokemon not the actual gameplay.[/quote]
And so games with good gameplay (if you get into it) suck because they are based upon creatures that you think are stupid? Fascinating logic you have there.
Not because they are based on stupid creatures but beacuse they ar ebased on a stupid and uninteresting world.
For me gameplay isn’t everything.
[quote=“GehnTheBerserker”]Not because they are based on stupid creatures but beacuse they ar ebased on a stupid and uninteresting world.
For me gameplay isn’t everything.[/quote]
… That is really ridiculous. If the gameplay sucks, the interesting world doesn’t matter.
The “stupid and uninteresting world” is based around the creatures. So if you don’t like them, then of course you’ll hate the background world.
[quote=“Mumei”]
[quote=“GehnTheBerserker”]Not because they are based on stupid creatures but beacuse they ar ebased on a stupid and uninteresting world.
For me gameplay isn’t everything.[/quote]
… That is really ridiculous. If the gameplay sucks, the interesting world doesn’t matter.[/quote]
But if the gameplay doens’t suck and the worlds does suck then the gameplay doens’t matter.
And there are games I love where I’m not even a big fan of the gameplay. Like Shenmue.
And Arcie : the world isn’t all about the creatures (altho it’s the major part) ;the aesthetics don’t make my day either.
Whilst he probably isn’t bankrupt now, are you indicating he got a share of the immense profits after he sold his idea? Not that you are, but it sounds like that. http://www.streamload.com/giga_d/XBOX_LIVE/PICS/smilie.GIF
I don’t really like Pokemon. Or any other thing of the type…
…Except for Card Captor Sakura…
I know, I suck but… She’s too cute and irresistible to not watch :anjou_embarassed:
