|
RPG's
Dec 22, 2010 17:53:40 GMT
Post by cypedant on Dec 22, 2010 17:53:40 GMT
I always considered losing a Pokémon battle (at least in cases where it's villainous team versus good guy) to be less "oh dear I lost a battle" and more "oh dear, these monsters are going to disembowel me if I don't comply." Obviously, that's not the 'official' explanation, but it would explain why bad guys give you money after losing...
It's not like this is Yu-Gi-Oh where they're 'fighting' with small pieces of printed card.
|
|
|
RPG's
Dec 26, 2010 20:46:17 GMT
Post by Ultra the HedgeToaster on Dec 26, 2010 20:46:17 GMT
... in the vein and quality of the old SNES Tales of Phantasia Ah, I actually have this one for GBA. Nice game, though in the end I never finished it and had the feeling I could see the villain's "true motive" miles away. (I may have been wrong of course, after all I didn't actually finish it.)
|
|
|
RPG's
Dec 29, 2010 22:53:54 GMT
Post by rogerfromimp on Dec 29, 2010 22:53:54 GMT
Aren't most Pokémon games like that, though? Their idea of "danger" is usually just "losing your Pokémon battle and with that, a percentage of your money". Any game with no sense of "game over" has no real serious sense of danger, in my opinion. Well yeah, but the normal pokemon gamesare more light hearted, so there's no sense of danger at all to begin with. Pokemon colleseum on the other hand tries hard to be cool and dark and scary and filled with adventures, making the plotholes of the pokemon games even more painfull. I guess they could send the pokemon to hurt the trainers after you lose a battle I guess, since they ARE shadow pokemon...thuss trained to hurt people. But then it baffles me why theyh ave to lose the match to even start threating you with violence, rather then immediatly sending the dogs...err.. pokemon..after the trainers themselves.
|
|