/vp/ - Pokémon » Searching for posts with the image hash ‘QIlQYf/lsEyU+M2pxdpFYA==’.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1341864985360.jpg, 55KiB, 606x532

Anonymous Fri 13 Sep 2013 20:46:08 No.13794221 View View Report

Quoted By:

I got a slim model DS for 20 bucks at a thrift shop three years ago and it came with the pokemon silver remake in the cartridge slot.

it pretty much got me back into pokemon after i lost interest in 2002 or so when it became "uncool" in school or whatever.

a year and a half ago i won a gift card and got the black version, its the first and only "modern" pokemon game I played and I'm not a hardcore fan or anything but i enjoyed it enough that I've kept an eye on X and Y versions when they were annoucned last january.

but my question is this:

Why in the fuck should I have to shell out 170 or more dollars in order to play the 7th iteration of a literally decade old handheld when the main "attraction" of these games are polygonal graphics that wouldn't have been impressive fifteen years ago on the Sega Dreamcast?

I'm not a graphics whore or I obviously wouldnt have even touched these games to begin with, but isn't it embarrassing that Gamefreak and Nintendo are tooting their horn with excitement over this when the system family was powerful enough to have a proper 3D game since launch in 2004 when the system launched with a Mario 64 remake.

Instead they sat on their hands making games that looked marginally better than GBA rpgs with occasional 3D gimmicks like that bridge in Black version, and now they want to go apeshit and make me buy a new system for auto-3D I'm not even going to use.

I'm not trolling at all, I just want an honest justification for this, because I think its grillshit.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1341864985360.jpg, 55KiB, 606x532

Anonymous Tue 27 Aug 2013 19:43:45 No.13567842 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>13567819

Objectively speaking, I still say he's attractive.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1341864985360.jpg, 55KiB, 606x532

Anonymous Wed 31 Jul 2013 20:57:02 No.13212736 View View Report

Quoted By:

>>13200521

I genuinely find nothing objectionable about the OP image.

Sure its goofy as fuck, but unless it turns out whoever drew that jerked off to developmental disabilities or something like that, I really find it endearing in its own way.

Especially compared to just about everything that came after it.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1341864985360.jpg, 55KiB, 606x532

Anonymous Wed 20 Mar 2013 13:02:31 No.11727602 View View Report

Quoted By:

Not trolling.

But this just seems really silly to me.

Can someone help explain the appeal of this to me? I'll never be interested in this myself, but I can "get" a lot of things out there I'm not personally in to.

Can someone help me "get" this?

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

Searching for posts with the image hash ‘QIlQYf/lsEyU+M2pxdpFYA==’. 4 results found.

On these archives

Your latest searches