Talk:Generation III: Criticized too often?: Difference between revisions

5,637 bytes added , 11 May 2010

m

Protected "Talk:Generation III: Criticized too often?": All these walls of text... with people starting to argue... ([edit=sysop] (expires 10:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) [move=sysop] (expires 10:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)))

Tc26

3,687

edits

@@ Line 44: / Line 44: @@
 Gen III was indeed a major step forward, and without it, Gen IV wouldn't be as awesome as it is. But it still sucked that there were literally no hints that we'd ever be able to get the 184 Pokémon missing from the Hdex. '''[[User:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#DAA520">''TTE''</span>]][[User talk:TTEchidna|<span style="color:#C0C0C0">chidna</span>]]''' 01:21, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
+: hmm--just curious as to what ones were missing? As well, in Gen III, via trading between Fire Red, Leaf Green, Ruby, Sapphire, Emerald, Colosseum and XD, the only one that you could not get in some way (well, beyond importing games) was Celebi. Though, some were event only (Mew, Deoxys and Jirachi), the rest of the national dex could be filled with some patience. Such as being able to get to the point that grabbing Hooh from Colosseum would be a reality--or purifying Lugia in XD enough to bring it over to the hand held.
+: If you mean no clues you could not get those 184 Pokemon in Gen IV, I think it was generally hinted with how they handled Gen III, that those 'mons would eventually show up.
+: Sorry--must admit confusion as to why people suggest this idea of a large amount off mons not being available in Gen III. --[[User:KatrinaTheLamia|KatrinaTheLamia]] 18:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
+::This isn't really a place for debating this, but I figure I would point out that there was no way to get all the Pokémon without spending at least $140, not counting link cables and an extra GBA to trade with.. and a Gamecube and a GCN link cable. Don't get me wrong, I love Gen III to death.. it's just expensive as all hell to complete the National Dex. Either that or you would have a bunch of friends with all the other games, which I'm not sure if everyone in the world who plays Pokémon has like five friends all with different games. D:
+::Thankfully they improved that in Gen IV, with cramming as much Pokémon in their games instead of having only 15 different Pokés post-E4. ._.;
+::Oh, and let's not forget that FRLGE also had restrictive trade limits... FRLG you can't get ''anything'' that's not in the Kdex, not even eggs. E you can't get anything that's not in the Hdex, though I'm pretty sure you can "smuggle" eggs in that are of non-Hdex Pokes. So yeah Gen III was pretty insane to complete the Ndex in ''one game'' for. Have to be a pretty hardcore Pokémon player to achieve that. [[User:Tina|Tina]] 00:43, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
+::: Yeah, even I admit, it WAS insanely annoying to purchase the required amount of hardware to grab everything in Gen III's dex. As well, that is when the joke of giving two versions to sell more Nintendo products kind of hit critical mass. As with Gen I, that was something briefly mentioned... then in Gen III it kind of hit the ridiculous level (Two GBAs, Link Cables, Gamecube, Gamecube>GBA Cables, e-reader, Emerald, Ruby|Sapphire, FR|LG, Collesium, XD, Pokemon Box, Jirachi Disc and various e-reader cards).
+::: I will agree, that even without the wonderful addition of the GTS, Gen IV did manage to reduce that Sparta level of Pokemon game play. (MADNESS?! THIS! IS! HOENN!)
+::: I hope that when Gen V comes around... the notice how much preferable it is for players to not get a second mortgage their house to complete it. Even if it is still possilbe --[[User:KatrinaTheLamia|KatrinaTheLamia]] 04:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
+::::[http://bmgf.bulbagarden.net/showthread.php?t=59319 Discussion here please]. Talk pages should really be used for discussing the article itself, not its subject. &mdash;'''<span style="font-family:Verdana">[[bp:User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#000">darklord</span>]][[User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#0047AB">trom</span>]]</span>''' 04:51, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
+::::: *blinks* well between the complete English fail here on presenting what you mean, this discussion was pretty much over already.
+::::: I mean, while I understand that this has been discussed to death (hence why I kind of dropped it in a form of agreement)... you DO realise that you said, "the talk page is to talk about X. Not to talk about X." to most people? I mean, unless you mean, that we are only to talk about the spelling, grammar and literary value of the article, I cannot have any clue as to what you just suggested as the policy in place here.
+::::: I mean, unless we go uber-meta, how can you talk about the article without talking of the context that the article is in, that is, the article's subject.
+::::: To bring up a summary, you just jumped into a discussion that ended, and said a confusing statement that talking about your article is a rather schroedinger's status here. As in the Talk we can both talk about the article and not talk about the article. Darklord, do you perchance have dog qualities? And if so, could you regale what the sound of one handed clapping is? --[[User:KatrinaTheLamia|KatrinaTheLamia]] 19:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
+::::::You hit the nail on the head, until you started addressing me with mean names D:
+::::::The talk page is ''meant'' to be used for discussing improvements, corrections, and inaccuracies with articles. Discussing feelings about the subject or topic is meant for the forums. That's why we link to the forum on the article page. You'll also get a wider response there. &mdash;'''<span style="font-family:Verdana">[[bp:User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#000">darklord</span>]][[User talk:The dark lord trombonator|<span style="color:#0047AB">trom</span>]]</span>''' 06:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 == TBH, ==
@@ Line 76: / Line 93: @@
 In short, I liked Gen III. --[[User:KatrinaTheLamia|KatrinaTheLamia]] 17:54, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
+:these talk pages are for discussing the site and how the article relates to it (like if there was a naming error or some bad links), any discussion directly related to the article and its contents would go to the forums. also, dont insult people, let alone an admin, thats just stupid. -- '''[[User:MAGNEDETH|<span style="color:#000033;">MAG</span>]]<span style="color:#696969;">NE</span>[[User talk:MAGNEDETH|<span style="color:#000033;">DETH</span>]]''' 01:01, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Generation III: Criticized too often?: Difference between revisions

Talk:Generation III: Criticized too often? (view source)

Revision as of 10:26, 11 May 2010