The Pokémanz Thread

[SuperLink]

 So... Monolith Soft working with Game Freak? I sure know I'd want that. ;D

Critical hit to the wants, that sounds like a dream within a dream

[buba]

I will laugh if this is a trading card game announcement.

 

They are hyping this way too much to be some TCG announcement.

 

Edited January 5, 2013 by Tmsp

[Cortez]

Why exactly isn't Pokemon first party again? Is it solely because Nintendo doesn't actually own Game Freak?

I only wondered because today I saw a Nintendo Monopoly board without any sort of Pokemon reference and it suddenly dawned on me that besides Smash Bros it's rarely included in general Nintendo stuff :/

[Detective Shadzter]

Yeah, the way they're promoting this through multiple channels AND worldwide means it's got to be something big. 

 

Gen 6 built to take advantage of the DSi XL.

[Blue Blood]

Why exactly isn't Pokemon first party again? Is it solely because Nintendo doesn't actually own Game Freak?

I only wondered because today I saw a Nintendo Monopoly board without any sort of Pokemon reference and it suddenly dawned on me that besides Smash Bros it's rarely included in general Nintendo stuff :/

 

Oh, you're right. Pokémon is not only one of Nintendos biggest franchises, but one of the biggest in gaming regardless. It does seem very odd now you mention it. They own Pokémon at any rate but it's not actually their idea.

[SuperLink]

Why exactly isn't Pokemon first party again? Is it solely because Nintendo doesn't actually own Game Freak?

I only wondered because today I saw a Nintendo Monopoly board without any sort of Pokemon reference and it suddenly dawned on me that besides Smash Bros it's rarely included in general Nintendo stuff :/

I myself have been wondering this for ages, I don't actually know the exact deal with Pokémon and I wish I did. Nintendo Land is lacking Pokémon stuff too, and with the exception of Smash Bros Nintendo's big first party developers never ever work with the series, it's a big wasted potential!

 

GameFreak isn't exactly first party, there's probably some kind of agreement that keeps Pokémon exclusive.. like Nintendo agree to leave GF to their own devices or something? But Pokémon games are also always copyrighted to Nintendo. It's bizarre.

 

I do not understand at all. I want to understand. Someone at Nintendo please tell me.

[Spin Attaxx]

Why exactly isn't Pokemon first party again? Is it solely because Nintendo doesn't actually own Game Freak?

I only wondered because today I saw a Nintendo Monopoly board without any sort of Pokemon reference and it suddenly dawned on me that besides Smash Bros it's rarely included in general Nintendo stuff :/

It's because Nintendo didn't create Pokémon - Game Freak did. As Nintendo owns Game Freak, it's second party, I believe.

 

I think it works like this:

 

First Party: A series made by a company for their own console e.g. Mario and Zelda.

 

Second Party: A series made by a developer owned by a company e.g. Kirby and (I believe) Halo.

 

Third Party: A series made by an independent developer for different consoles e.g. Sonic and Mega Man.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Spin Attaxx

[Detective Shadzter]

I myself have been wondering this for ages, I don't actually know the exact deal with Pokémon and I wish I did. Nintendo Land is lacking Pokémon stuff too, and with the exception of Smash Bros Nintendo's big first party developers never ever work with the series, it's a big wasted potential!

 

GameFreak isn't exactly first party, there's probably some kind of agreement that keeps Pokémon exclusive.. like Nintendo agree to leave GF to their own devices or something? But Pokémon games are also always copyrighted to Nintendo. It's bizarre.

 

I do not understand at all. I want to understand. Someone at Nintendo please tell me.

GameFreak agree to keep Pokémon exclusive if Nintendo agree to leave their girlfriends to their own devices? That's some dirty tactics right there 

[Carbo]

Pokémon is first party by virtue of being Nintendo published, and they also own the license.

Game Freak is a second party developer. This isn't because they're owned by Nintendo (which they aren't) but because they're an independent third party that specializes in developing for them. Generally companies like Naughty Dog, Rare and Monolith are all first party developers because of acting as a subsidiary while a second party is the rarest form of developer with the term only being used in a colloquial sense. Insomniac Games is another example of a second party developer and up until recently with Fuse they were commonly defined as such.

As such Nintendo solicit the titles from Game Freak. Why Nintendo don't actually own them as a subsidiary is beyond me.

[SuperLink]

Maybe there's some kind of agreement there afterall, still it's obvious GameFreak have a favour for Nintendo platforms so I wonder why they don't just merge into Nintendo and become a first party. If Nintendo bought them out I bet they'd have a lot more money for resources too.. and let's be honest, mainseries Pokémon games kinda lack resources.

 

Ooh ooh, what if the big announcement is that GameFreak is becoming a first party.

 

(also speaking of Kirby, Kirby has multiple StreetPass puzzles and Pokémon has none, I always thought that was weird.)

[buba]

Ooh ooh, what if the big announcement is that GameFreak is becoming a first party.

 

Would fans (mostly kids) even care about that for GF make such a big thing out of it?

[Cortez]

(also speaking of Kirby, Kirby has multiple StreetPass puzzles and Pokémon has none, I always thought that was weird.)

Yeah see, I always found it strange that Kirby is always included in general Nintendo stuff but Pokemon isn't... It's very confusing and doesn't make a lot of sense, surely GameFreak could only benefit from Pokemon being associated with all the other main Nintendo franchises?

[SuperLink]

Would fans (mostly kids) even care about that for GF make such a big thing out of it?

Yeah which is why it's probably not the case (I prolly should have made it more obvious I was joking but)

Not a move I would be against suffice to say.

 

It's just a little frustrating to know that Pokémon could have some interesting things done to it if GF had the resources and manpower of a first party..so I hope they consider merging their efforts more in the near future.

 

@ProfJ:

Exactly. I really don't understand the lack of integration between GF and Nintendo considering all parties would probably absolutely benefit. I mean, to see Mario and Pikachu, arguably gaming's biggest icons, side by side more often? Would be a force to reckon with.

[Thrippa]

I've wondered that about the Nintendo Club prizes (without really collecting it to anything else).  I've enough pokemon games to fill one of those 9-card carry-cases, but they never offer one with a pokemon pattern.  Or anything else with one - DK and Mario, Animal Crossing and Kirby, Zelda and actual system (3DS, Game and Watch, NES) themes, but never Pokemon.

 

 

(Of course at the moment I'm prowling for the gold nunchuks to be available again, I need one to match my SS Wiimote.  It says 'returning in January 2013 . . . and I have the 900 coins.)

[buba]

PokéSmash will air in some hours and Masuda will be there, so expect some teaser or something for the big thing on January 8th.

You can watch it live here: http://www.youtube.com/user/giancarloparimango11?v=3qDmFbRQ-IM

[FourCartridge]

OK, I don't believe the D&P remake leak for one second.

 

 

Prouf plx. my brain die. If this is real...

[SuperLink]

Hm really? I thought the prophesised ~Masuda Episode~ of PokéSmash wasn't til next week.

 

Consider myself slightly hyped for later then.. but I expect a teaser at the most.

[MykonosFan]

Concerning Kirby vs. Pokemon representation, Satoru Iwata worked at HAL right? Maybe there's something to that.

[buba]

OK, I don't believe the D&P remake leak for one second.

 

 

Prouf plx. my brain die. If this is real...

 

The D&P remake? No  ...I hope.

I just took advantage of the previous status to fuck with you guys.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Tmsp

[SuperLink]

Concerning Kirby vs. Pokemon representation, Satoru Iwata worked at HAL right? Maybe there's something to that.

Good point, plus I'm pretty sure HAL is a darn tootin bonafide first party anyway, unlike GameFreak.

 

While I'm currently hyped for impending Pokémon news in the next few days, I'm trying to get my head around the fact that Nintendo own the rights to Pokémon and yet won't use Pokémon in Nintendo games besides Smash.

[Marcello]

What else is there, besides Nintendoland?

[SuperLink]

What else is there, besides Nintendoland?

Even things like Nintendo OS' and console standard apps. Or Animal Crossing. Lots!

[Marcello]

I guess.

 

 

There's the Keaton mask, which is Pikachu, in OOT and MM.

Edited January 5, 2013 by MarcelloF

[-blank-]

What else is there, besides Nintendoland?

This makes me wish Nintenoland had a Pokemon mini game. =\

[Red]

I know in Animal Crossing on the Gamecube, the Pokemon Pikachu virtual pet was an item you had to retrieve fairly often to give back to your neighbours.