Jump to content
NEurope

Julius

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    8,246

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    178

Posts posted by Julius

  1. Posted

    Having to lug a home console so that they can continue to use their Pokémon because the games are now on home console?

     

    Except with Bank they could transport those Pokémon from home console to portable and vice versa. I don't recall anyone saying that the series would shift from being portable to home only?

     

    That'd be a bit cumbersome, though, especially if separate. Plus that still doesn't counter the main issue.

     

    Can you please define the main issue/s you have with a home console Pokémon game which could potentially revitalise the franchise? I'm intrigued.

  2. Posted

    Wow that exploded FAST. @Retro_Link great discussion to start.

     

    I honestly don't see the problem with a separate open world MMORPG on something like the UE4, using Bank to transport Pokémon between the games. An argument for items could be made, but like I've said, an Item Bank could be implemented which limits users to not having more than one of certain items in a game (such as Master Balls and Legendary specific items), and to transfer items from game to game.

  3. Posted

    What's the percentage of Pokémon users that buy a Pokémon game purely because they have the option to take it out of their house?

     

    Hopefully you can provide me with that statistic... but personally I would think it's incredibly small. As in, if they could still buy a Pokémon game, but they would have to play the whole thing at home, they would still do so. And of those that do use the portable aspect, I would have thought a large percentage of those would sacrifice it to have a different, more story driven experience with Pokémon, once every... say, 5 years.

     

    Yes it is, but you need to log in with your NNID, it doesn't store items, it's locked to devices and is separate to the games themselves. It'd be a very, slapdash and poorly constructed way of getting around that issue

     

    ...a supplementary Bank system for items which limits each game to one of a certain item (such as a Master Ball and your special Legendary specific items, such as the Adamant, Lustrous and Griseous Orbs)?

  4. Posted

    That's quite an exaggeration. They're not waning.

     

    Okay, okay, not waning.

     

    There's just a definite negative correlation in sales which has been apparent since the dawn of the franchise and only challenged by the release of Diamond and Pearl in terms of opening pairs for a generation.

  5. Posted

    Ok, so let's say we go to a Pokémon event and the games have shifted to home console. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there.

     

    Ok, I want to meet with a friend and battle. Oh shit, I have to lug my console there.

     

    The portable aspect of Pokémon is huge, especially in Japan. Removing it just with the idea "oh, online exists" is illogical. Online does exist. It is used already in Pokémon. It is not a viable replacement, it's a supplement.

     

     

     

    No, I endorse Pokémon changing, but fundamental shifts in the way people suggest would be damaging.

     

     

     

    This is a game, not real life :p

     

     

    Ok, so let's say we're playing your game with the "dynamic" appearances. Let's say you need to EV train a Pokémon.

     

    Right, we go into the route to find an Oddish for its Special Attack points. We find one, we battle it, we defeat it. Now, in yours, we have to go find a completely different Oddish that may have spawned elsewhere in the area. It'd take forever compared to the step step step fight. It would elongate the process dramatically unless they severely shift and simplify the entire concept of the battle system

     

    YES BUT @Serebii BANK IS ALREADY PLANNED TO BE MULTIGENERATIONAL AND MULTIPLATFORM!

  6. Posted

    "Random encounters" is not a buzzword (or "buzzterm")?

     

    Dynamic: Have Pokémon run around the area, climb on trees, sneak through grass, swim underwater (real time fishing), fly through the air...approach a Pokémon and enter a battle, can be turn-based. Everything dynamic.

    Dynamic wheather, better day and night cycle, dynamic world, i.e. more lively, different people do different thigns at different times.

     

    3DS has a limit to "large" and "more Quests", which is obvious and you know that.

     

    And I know that "larger" doesn't necessarily equal better, but in a series that has over 700 Pokémon (don't know how many there are) a bigger world with all of them in it would be ever gamer's dream.

     

    Honestly if they did it right, I'd be up for a version of this just in Kanto with he original 151 if they wanted to test it.

     

    I can see what Serebii means, Pokémon has roots, and by all means should stick to the portable side of gaming - but with waning sales figures Pokémon needs to do something outrageously righteous for the fans and themselves (MMORPG open world on UE4. Pretty please?).

  7. Posted

    By home console gaming I assume we're on about the much wanted open world MMORPG we all want on Unreal Engine 4? In which case, I'm totally in.

     

    Something like this seems even more likely given that Bank is going to be multigenerational (albeit in normally one direction) and serve the franchise on a number of platforms, as hinted during several interviews and press releases about Bank.

  8. Posted

    Have you considered telling her you've been drafted into a super secret army and have a top secret mission to kill the king of China. If she questions anything, tell her that that's exactly what a spy would say and tell her that her eyes look "a bit slanty". If she persists, just whisper "they're on to me" into your cuff and exit immediately.

     

    You're welcome.

     

    Plot twist: she figures you to actually be an extradited Chinese spy after you whisper "they're on to me".

     

    You know, Chinese whispers and all.

  9. Posted

    Isn't the whole point that DC break out from Batman though. A solo Batman movie isn't going to help their cinematic universe, it's just another Batman movie, and they were already doing great with those.

     

    Your first sentence I couldn't disagree with more. Argue what you will, but Batman is among the top three most well known comic book characters in history, and especially in the modern era, so saying it's supposed to be them moving away from Batman seems extremely counter intuitive.

     

    A Batman movie won't help the DCEU? Urm...it's almost universally agreed that Ben Affleck's portrayal of Bats/Wayne is possibly the best on the silver screen to date, and is currently one of the most popular things about the DCEU's current state, and delving deeper into his lore would be great for both movie fans in general and comic book fans too. World-building will take place in every DCEU film, and he won't take the shine off of other characters like you suggest (unless, of course, he ends up having a major role in say Aquaman and Green Lantern Corps) by having a solo outing.

     

    The last two Batman movies alone (Nolan's The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Rises) are not only critically acclaimed, but also grossed a little over $2 billion worldwide between them. For comparison, the first six MCU films (before The Avengers) grossed around $2.3 billion worldwide between them.

     

    Batman is a massive property, and if handled right could, in my opinion, be in for an Oscar nod. Affleck certainly has it in him, as we all know.

     

    I don't think so. I think they're just looking to have successes beyond Batman.

     

    That's a good way of phrasing it.

     

    Batman Beyond confirmed

  10. Posted

    I think WB have very wisely kept their options open to add more properties into the slate.

     

    I mean, look at 2018, 2019 and 2020. Only 2018 (with Aquaman in July) has a movie slated for release after June.

     

    So, *hopefully*, with Affleck's Live by Night and Justice League being released October and November 2017 respectively, we could see The Batman as soon as late 2018.

     

    Hopefully.

  12. Posted

    Yes, it seem utterly ridiculous to kill a well-liked comic character without even mentioning that they are that character, then after the film you say "Oh, btw, that random photographer who died? He was Jimmy Olsen"

     

    You have to sell the extended cut somehow. I would rather have Snyder not confirm who that guy was (being with Lois and shooting a camera made it fairly obvious though) and leave it for further explanation, if there is one, in the extended cut.

     

    Which by the way I CANNOT wait for

     

  13. Posted

    Been doing some thinking and talking with some friends about who the next James Bond should be, and after rewatching First Class, I have to admit that Michael Fassbender would be perfect for the role.

     

    For me, Henry Cavill has a lot on his plate already, playing Superman, and the guy is MASSIVE - not exactly Bond-esque, and not something hell easily be able to transition between. Idris Elba, though I'd love to see, would undoubtedly cause an uproar, in a larger version of the Black Stormtrooper debate about John Boyega's Finn (which was stupid anyway, clearly weren't real SW fans if they thought that was wrong). I'd like for him to portray a friend or ally of Bond's though, perhaps another agent. Tom Hardy is pretty big too, and personally I think he'd be a great villain for Bond to face off against.

  14. Posted

    See once again that stinks of Snyder not including things in the actual movie. Promotional interview, Jenny Olson, Jimmy Olson...

     

    This is the one I'm referring to: http://fortune.com/contentfrom/2015/10/5/lex-luthor-jr/ntv_a/3dsBA58oDAfxgFA/

     

    Luthor alludes pretty blatantly in the film to the fact that his father beat him, and considering that this Luthor, Jr, is 31, I don't think it's too far fetched to hope his father (Bryan Cranston) is out there somewhere, over the rainbow...

     

  15. Posted

    Feel free to talk anything movies, from casting news to the latest rumours, as well as your own personal speculation and hopes!

     

    Whether it be who you think should be the next Bond, to how big a role Luke Skywalker should have in the next Star Wars instalment, talk anything that is movies on your mind!

  16. Posted

    Yeah it was just a crap performance either way. Still though, I see no reason to think that he isnt the Lex from the comics just because his father has the same name.

     

    From his sharing of the Alexander name to the past with his father, as well as many of the events outlined in that promotional interview, they've tried to make it pretty clear that he isn't Lex Luthor, like-for-like, from the comics, from his intellect to the way he acts, to his physicality, and so on.

  17. Posted

    He definitely did, but unfortunately it was a pile of his own excrement that he made.

     

     

    I mostly think those that like it are easily pleased. I just don't see how anyone could consider this any good... I just can't see it at all. ::shrug:

     

    I tried to share my point through a spoiler tag, but alas.

     

    Jesse Eisenberg isn't playing Lex from the comics, he's playing Lex Luthor Jr. Yes, they have similar names and similar stories, but they clearly aren't like-for-like.

     

    I'm still on the fence. Jesse's portrayal was good of the character he was given, but it clearly isn't Lex, but that isn't a problem that should be directed at Jesse but in fact at the casting director. This guy was lined up to play Jimmy Olsen and Cranston was in line to be Lex.

  19. Posted

    It could if they did 10-episode seasons a lá Game of Thrones and the like.

     

    No chance.

     

    Firstly, each episode of season six of GOT, on average, will cost $10 million to produce.

     

    They could do a Netflix series which is a completely unique story, but otherwise, you're talking a LOT more than $10 million per episode. Call that $100 million to produce the ten episode season, minimum, and then possibly an equal amount just to market it (it's Star Wars - you know they love marketing).

     

    That's $200 million+ for a show they'll probably make less money from per head than they do when compared to ticket prices at the cinema.

     

    The Force Awakens cost $200 million to produce, and I'd much rather they make another movie (aka continue with what they're already doing) then get some crumby ten parter without the heart of Star Wars. Any story they wish to tell could also be done via animated media - look at how well Rebels and The Clone Wars do, commercially and critically.

  24. Posted

    I'm telling you. This is literally How I Met Your Mother all over again!

     

    That's life. You have your Blue French Horns and your Yellow Umbrella.

     

    Your Blue French Horn is the love of your life for like ten years until you stumble upon a Yellow Umbrella (FINALLY), who is killed off five minutes later, and you end up with Blue French Horn anyway.

     

    The lesson here is SCREW YOU HIMYM ENDING.

×