Template talk:Pokémon games

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Pokémon games page.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

Contents 1 Nintendo DS a Game Boy system 2 Puzzle/Torouze 3 Italics 4 Aesthetic 5 Battle Revolution

[edit] Nintendo DS a Game Boy system

Isn't Nintendo DS a Game Boy system? (Even though it officially doesn't have a Game Boy title?)

No. It's a separate system, hence it being a "third pillar" and the GBA sticking around for a bit longer. --/ɛvɪs/ 15:47, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

Nintendo have stated clearly that the DS is seperate to the GBA. (Hence the upcoming release of the GBA Micro). Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Puzzle/Torouze

Isn't Pokémon Puzzle the same game as Pokémon Torouze? (Puzzle Challenge and Puzzle League are already on the table.) Sonic Mew | talk to me 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard nothing of a second Puzzle game, so I'm going to remove it for now. Sonic Mew | talk to me 22:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Italics

I noticed that the italics from the main game titles were removed. I'm curious as to why; I italicized them simply because names of whole works are italicized in print. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetic

This template looks pretty awful. Isn't there anything we can do to jazz it up and simultaneously make it look less cluttered? -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

We can start by reverting your changes. I perosnally liked the old one just fine. But the first thing to do is to not have sub-sects - either organize them with that left-hand side menu or like it was the old way. Don't try to mix them together. Also, I hightly doubt the need to specialize them so deeply; console and handheld spinoffs look much better than categorziing each game by type. - Hbdragon88

Okay...I removed most of the specialized sections, the smaller font, and the "generation" bits. This looks much better. - Hbdragon88 07:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That was a rather rude way to put it. Anyway, the smaller font and generations were not my ideas, they were in the old version. I think they were very useful for seperating out the stages of the RPGs' evolution. If you don't like divisions within categories, maybe we can work with something like this[1].

The categories you want to use( divisions by platform) are far too broad, and tell the reader nothing about the content of the games. I'm willing to find a compromise, with fewer categories, but they should be more informative. Also, the GCN RPGs are more than just spinoffs. They're not the same as the handheld series, but they are Pokémon RPGs, within the continuity. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

None of the other templates are that specific. We unfortunately have nothing easy to work with; the Mario template is locked within a nice number of series (i.e. Mario Party, Mario Golf, Mario Tennis), while Pokemon is really far-flung. In my opinion, the reader doesn't need to be informed so deeply about what the games are about, and the current organization is too specific and fragmented. It looks outright ugly to have two classes of organization within the template. For the RPG series, we should either shelve the "First Generation" or list them in the main sideebar. Going back to Mario, we don't see "NES: SMB, SMB2, SMB3; SNES: SMW, YI2" or that kind of stuff. As for organization, the simply list them out from the main sidebar, but that would be cluttered beyond cluttered.

As for spinoffs: There's only been two pinball games. Only ONE racing game. And specific Pokemon Mini games shouldn't count as separate entities; now I suddenly understand why there are five million new games, it's because there are a crapload of games that could be listed under a single Poekmon Mini title (which is already there).

Until I see proof (such as an official statement) otherwise that XD and Collosseum are supposed to be part of the RPG continuity I am convinced otherwise that they should remain as spinoffs. You have a completely different mission in Collosseum/XD - to cure shadow Pokemon and defeat the evil organization. Despite region and character changes, the 2D RPG series still retain the same goal: to be the best, beat the Elite Four and your rival. It's a completely different timeline altogether.

I wasn't blaming you for the small font or the generation organzation. The genreations bit loooked just fine with the original top-down organization, but now sticks out very awkwardly with the sidebar organization. And yes, I knew that the small font was a carryover from the original.

I also reverted the changes you made. As I stated in the summary, about 4-6 titles are Pokemon Mini titles that should only be grouped under one title. Second, Pokemon Pikachu is a virtual pet, not a video game; I am not even certain if it should stay in this template (since it's about video games), but it belongs in a miscellaneous section, not in the main video game spinoff categories. - Hbdragon88 23:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. While grouping Pokémon Mini titles and having fewer overall categories is certainly a good idea( note that I would insist on listing PM games seperately if they had their own articles), I definitely think the template should give a reader some information about the content of the games, not just whether they're handheld or played on a TV. The purpose of the template is to aid navigation. I'm reverting to the version I linked in my prior comment[1]. It's definitely overblown and redundant, but it's more helpful for describing what games are about.

In fact, I think each link in this version([1]) should have its own article, and while I don't object to grouping/combining/deleting them now, I may very well create those articles and re-link them later.

As for PC/PXD, the execution and story goals may be quite different, but the core mechanics are the same: travel around a region, gain access to new areas, find items, catch and raise Pokémon, become stronger, and beat increasingly tough opponents until you're ready and able to face the ultimate challenge, then complete a few side quests to tie up loose ends.

I mean, Zelda II and VI had very different gameplay, and Zelda IV had a completly different end goal, but no one disputes that they are all part of the main Zelda series. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 07:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You still haven't quite addressed the issue of the Colloseeum/XD issue. You don't fight to be the best; you fight to liberate Pokemon. There's no Elite Four, nor is there a main rival/friend. You can't travel around as extensively as in the 2D regions. Zelda's games have been introduced differently; we know for a fact that Ocarina is the 3D transition for the series. Beyond that, they have a loose continuity of sorts - OoT has story details that link it up with the other games in the series. You know what - I'm asking someone else to decide this issue.

I don't think there are enough games in each genre, so to speak, to allow effective organization. As I pointed out, there are only two pinball games (and one article, for that matter), one racing game (the Mini games should all be rolled into one). There could be an argument for the puzzle games, to which there are three. Also, I'm still lobbying for the total change into consolidating all the RPGs into one category. I find it very unwieldly and bloated in this state, offering too much organization. They are RPGs. And a user could simply click on the main page to find out how the titles are divided up, and my revision had them in chronological order. - Hbdragon88 21:56, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In Zelda II you travel and fight in a very different way, and increase your power through levelling. Zelda IV and VI have no princess to save, and you don't fight Ganon. In VI you repeat the same 3 days over and over. Explain to me how these differences are less significant than the PC/XD ones.

I'm not opposed to consolidating Racing, Card, Snap, Pinball, etc. under a heading like "Fun & Games"... And I'd agree to removing the individual Mini games (until they have their own articles). I think larger categories like "Storage" and "Puzzle" with 3 games each and "Pikchu" with 4 should stay. I consider the generation divisions important because they each represent a huge leap in core mechanics, plus the addition of a pool of new Pokémon.-- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

The GameSpot preview decribes XD as an "alternate universe" to the regular games [2]. IGN's review for XD also decribes the console games as "strict spinoffs that purposely remained separate from the handheld adventures" [3]. Gamersinfo.net's review of XD also says that Coloseeum was "a branch-off from the Pokemon Stadium series on the Nintendo 64," not part of the Game Boy series [4]. This is why XD and Colosseum are separate. Also, would you mind using acronyms or game titles? I'm not a big Zelda fan, and I'm not even sure if you're counting the handheld versions or not. I will let the "main" spinoff titles remain in its own category (Stadium, Colosseum, XD) into its own line, but I'm still pushing for a general console and handheld spinoff section. Pikachu virtual pets can stay. - Hbdragon88 00:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Decent compromise for now, still not satisfied. Will deal with it later, a few months, perhaps. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 16:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank God someone fixed this crappy template up. All I ask is that Box should be fit in somehow. If it can't, that's fine. I just think it might be a little better to include it. Hello2112 22:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Battle Revolution

I've added Battle Revolution because it'll be released within a month. Diamond and Pearl were listed on this template long before they were released. Stealthychimp 11:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Excluding far-off unreleased games is a fairly recent practice, so older precedent doesn't really enter into it. If Battle Revolution is soon to be released, though, it belongs here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)