Topic: Pokemon Wii to be announced soon.

My computer has a calculator.

Oh. I assumed that you were one of those people who hated Pokémon because it's "kiddy" or whatever.
Anyway, I can't really complain about the combat. It works just fine for me, and all the possible move combinations a Pokémon can have make the game even deeper.

@metang: I used to think that. Now I know some friends at school that thinks it's for 8 yr. olds and what not, but not me. Whenever I first actually played it, it just turned into a monotonous borefest. (excuse my spelling)

You said "most RPGs". What RPGs do you like, Cheetahman?

@popyman: Anything with the word "Mario" in it. Chrono Trigger's OK too in my books.

Only kids would put up with such a terrible combat system.

**runs for cover**

"If growing up means what you say, I'll remain a kid forever."--Naruto

So then you like the RPGs that give you more interactions in the battle? You should play Mother 3(and Earthbound), which, IMO, is the best game ever. It's battle system has a scrolling health bar, so you can be hit by a killing blow, but you can still survive if you heal before your health stops spinning down. It's brilliant and really keeps you involved, instead of sitting there watching battles go on.

If it's similar to the 2D Pokemon games but in 3D, I'll certainly buy it.

@popyman: I'll have to give Earthbound a chance if that's the case, and so I can see where Ness came from.

That's highly impossible, as there are just shy of 500 pokemon as it is.

If it's like Red-HeartGold games, insta-buy.

I know, I was trolling. I do that sometimes, as you have probably seen already.

In Pokemon, you get 4 abilities. That's it. I also think that the Pokemon games are very bland, it's the same story every time, where in Final Fantasy, you usually get an entire new world to explore, new story, new characters, etc.

Agreed. I really need to play Earthbound again, but man that game was hard!

Is it Final Fantasy 1 or Phantasy Star 1 hard?

DEEP???? How is Pokemon deep, the stats are not different from any other game and can easily be avoided unlike Final Fantasy were you beg to have those little power-ups. Also many items in other RPG's can't simply be bought, they have to be found or recieved after doing a side-quest. In Pokemon all of the time you always have almost any item you want avalible to buy by the end of the game, but not in many other RPG's that I've played. Also by saying that all the combonations give the game depth, the chances that you are going to use more than just your most powerful Pokemon and the only way you are ever going to use different Pokemon is to either catch a powerful one, or tediously raise one. Also money in the game is the easiest thing in the world to get, I can find money around every corner and once again in other RPG's money is a lot harder to come by than in Pokemon. I can go on forever, but unfortunetley I don't want to, my simple point is that in Pokemon there are complex elements, but they are not even close to mandatory whcih in turn makes it one of the easiest RPG's I ever played. Also on the move set list, you are limited to 4 moves throughout all of the game for each Pokemon and while you can teach other moves, it comes at the expense of other good moves when at higher levels. Most of your points don't really compare to other RPG's in terms of how complex the game is. Pokemon is Simple!

I'll have to keep my eye on this game.

@Supermarioman: You are talking about just beating the game. In Pokemon, the real game starts AFTER you beat the main "story". Pokemon's depth is in making the best team of Pokemon you can, and beating other real people. In order to do that, it involves things that a normal person wouldn't notice; a hidden depth, much like Super Smash Brothers. Look up "EV Training" to see just how much depth there is under Pokemon's cutesy exterior.

I'm not saying you have to play Pokemon like that (I don't) but calling it simple while you ignore everything that makes it deep isn't cool with me.

Tell me, you silly people that are convinced Pokemon lacks depth,

Which requires more strategy, being in a situation where every option is available at will, or having a limited selection from a particular range of options?

It seems you two are looking at depth from a different angle. Then Mario has a ridiculous rant featuring terrible sentence structure and blatant contradictions.

Every item available to be bought by endgame?, clearly you know not of what you speak.

There aren't money troubles in Pokemon? That may be true, but most other RPGs provide ample money, often you may be tight in the beginning, but shortly thereafter money will not be a concern.

If you want to argue that not all the Pokemon will be used, that's fair, but you have the option to do so. On the flipside in most other RPGs, if there are more characters in your team, than there can be in the party, the better ones will likely be used, with the wimpos benched.

Truth be told, just playing through the main story in Pokemon, little of the depth will really be explored, however going above and beyond that, the depth is pretty staggering.

I think this shall do, now if you'll excuse I'm going to go play Final Fantasy insert numeral here, I may come back in a bit to tell you how very successful I was just repeatedly having my characters physically attack, with the odd Curaga thrown in