Pokemon Stars Discussion Thread (Speculation)

Do you think that Stars is real or Fake

  • Real

    Votes: 61 59.8%
  • Fake

    Votes: 41 40.2%

  • Total voters
    102
  • Poll closed .
Destroyer of Fairy, Steel and Ice types.
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
5,199
Reaction score
2,243
DP weren't useless. True Platinum overshadow them but DP had pokemon exclusive to them that Platinum didn't have. Plus a collector like me likes to collect all of a gen and not just one or two. If Stars is real then I pray it be on 3DS. GF and/or Nintendo shouldn't hurt 3DS users by putting other gen 7 games on a new handheld.
 
Amphibious Friend
Joined
May 21, 2010
Messages
16,047
Reaction score
5,827
As long as they give Sun and Moon at LEAST a year to settle in I don't see any reason why they couldn't either import the game or do a third version on the Switch. It's already such a beautiful game, I would love to play it with just the higher graphics, and I would also really like to see what more features they can fit into it on a more advanced console.
 
Previously known as 'Isamu Akai'
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,503
Reaction score
1,701
I don't want them to ever start putting games that are in the middle of a gen on a new platform. That would hurt me and other 3DS users. I do not know what Robopon is.
Like I said, first time for everything. Gen 5 was the first generation to not have a proper third version, and Gen 6 didn't have any at all. Things change.

And Robopon was a monster-raising RPG for the Gameboy Color whose paired versions were called Sun and Star. My point was, it doesn't matter that the sun is a star; 'Star' is still valid as a version name.
 
Destroyer of Fairy, Steel and Ice types.
Joined
Feb 21, 2011
Messages
5,199
Reaction score
2,243
Like I said, first time for everything. Gen 5 was the first generation to not have a proper third version, and Gen 6 didn't have any at all. Things change.

And Robopon was a monster-raising RPG for the Gameboy Color whose paired versions were called Sun and Star. My point was, it doesn't matter that the sun is a star; 'Star' is still valid as a version name.
Well I have my preferences when it comes to pokemon games. I prefer that all of gen 7 games are on 3DS while Switch would host gen 8. That is my opinion but others can have their own opinions. I am tired of arguing now. Whether or not something happens or not is for GF to decide.
 
Pokémon Expert
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
3,589
Sure, things can change. But there are objectively GOOD changes, and objectively SHIT ones. Returning to 40 dollars DLCs is definitely a step backwards.

"But this is just your opinion!" No it is not. It is an objective fact that returning to 40 dollar DLCs, after getting a fully new game like BW2, is a wrong move. It means they are going the lazy route again.
 
Last edited:
Previously known as 'Isamu Akai'
Joined
Jun 1, 2011
Messages
2,503
Reaction score
1,701
Sure, things change. But there are objectively GOOD changes, and objectively SHIT ones.
It's not objective at all, but subjective. Some people are not bothered by Switch getting Stars. You cannot say that everyone is bothered by this.

And you're arguing "40 dollar DLCs" when those have always existed. They are called Japanese Blue, Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, and Platinum.
 
Nuzlocke Lover
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
3,627
Reaction score
4,151
I feel like they are testing what the Switch is capable of with a third version rather than a new generation. A new generation would be too many unknowns like a new engine, new graphics...

A third version would be using software of previous games that they are familiar with. It would be a safer option for them to take and give the Switch a main Pokemon game for its first year.

So all of the first party, Mario and Pokemon and Zelda, games would be in the Switch's first year. I feel like that's a smart move.
 
真実の英雄
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
335
If this is a third version, I'm going to be really disappointed. Pokemon Gray died for nothing.
 
Go listen to The Birdwatcher's Guide to Atrocity
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
6,709
Reaction score
17,527
I have no love for the Third Version Technique, but I don't mind Stars. It would seem to be beneficial for both Nintendo and Game Freak - Nintendo need the Switch to be a success right away, and it would help to have Switch games for all of their biggest franchises available early on; meanwhile, Game Freak may not want to risk staking a new generation on the Switch (I don't think they'd have enough time to create a new generation anyway), so why not an (in the grand scheme of things) disposable upgrade of SM? It'll let them get a hang of the new system without having to do any major work, since all of the important work went into the 3DS versions, and that'll be good for when they're ready to start on Gen VIII.

There would still be a reason for people to buy the 3DS versions - namely, "I don't want to spend $XXX on a new console and a minor upgrade of something I could get for $40 on the 3DS that I already own." Meanwhile, I doubt that very many people will be buying the Switch solely for Stars, so they'll get more value for their larger investment. Stars isn't exactly the same kind of "$40 DLC" as Emerald/Platinum, because you have to pay for a whole new console as well. It's a much bigger purchase with more pros and cons to take into consideration.

Personally, I'd be more bothered if it were a sequel or some such, because then I'd be cut off from it for quite a while due to financial limitations. Whereas, if the people with extra money to spill are only getting access to some bonus features, it's a more even field.

I think the best-case scenario that *I* can hope for is that the next Gen VII games are a dual-3DS/Switch release. But I think that'd definitely be the final 3DS entry for the series.
 
Nuzlocke Lover
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
3,627
Reaction score
4,151
If this is a third version, I'm going to be really disappointed. Pokemon Gray died for nothing.
From the article:
"Pokémon Stars' development shouldn't be seen as
taking anything away from Sun and Moon's launch -
this is how all third entries in the Pokémon franchise
are developed."
 
真実の英雄
Joined
May 2, 2011
Messages
1,573
Reaction score
335
From the article:
"Pokémon Stars' development shouldn't be seen as
taking anything away from Sun and Moon's launch -
this is how all third entries in the Pokémon franchise
are developed."
It's fine if you're excited about whatever Stars is, but stop jumping on every person that doesn't feel the same way as you.
 
Nuzlocke Lover
Joined
Oct 15, 2015
Messages
3,627
Reaction score
4,151
It's fine if you're excited about whatever Stars is, but stop jumping on every person that doesn't feel the same way as you.
I am not jumping on anyone. I am just pointing out that if Stars is real, it'll be a third version.
 
Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
375
Reaction score
60
I think sequels would fit sun/moon better than third version. It has great character, and I would like to see how they will be in the future. Is necrozma a necromant? If it is, how would a plot around it be?
 
Only 79 new Pokemon?
Joined
Aug 11, 2012
Messages
1,741
Reaction score
559
Honestly I can't really see any reason for people being against stars other than butthurt over not wanting/affording a switch. Especially with such vague and flimsy justifications like "it's a bad idea" or "Gamefreak shouldn't do it", or "it will split the generation"

They can easily make it compatible with SM sans any extra features. Besides the fact that ORAS already split the generation with new megas, but no one's ever complaining about that. If you are already in love with SM and everything it has to offer, having a version on the switch isn't going to retroactively make what you have worse.
 
Go listen to The Birdwatcher's Guide to Atrocity
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Messages
6,709
Reaction score
17,527
Besides the fact that ORAS already split the generation with new megas, but no one's ever complaining about that.
I'm not complaining about Stars, but I distinctly recall a fair amount of dislike for that decision, from myself as well as others.
 
Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2012
Messages
987
Reaction score
972
Yeah, the ORAS example is a poor one as that was a point of contention and still is, I remember a lot of fans lambasting GF from cutting off XY from the new stuff when patches exist.

Honestly though, I won't mind Stars as long as it's more B2W2 then Emerald. Playing through Sun as is, I see so much more potential in a sequel-like game where they expand on the whereabouts of pre-existing characters, the region, and the like then a revisit where we're retreading mostly the same ground. Plus, it kind of seems like it'd be a step back to go from what was a more unique take those games had to the typical third version we were used to for the first few generations.
 
Bringing the Thunder
Joined
Mar 20, 2013
Messages
5,155
Reaction score
3,312
Honestly I can't really see any reason for people being against stars other than butthurt over not wanting/affording a switch. Especially with such vague and flimsy justifications like "it's a bad idea" or "Gamefreak shouldn't do it", or "it will split the generation"

They can easily make it compatible with SM sans any extra features. Besides the fact that ORAS already split the generation with new megas, but no one's ever complaining about that. If you are already in love with SM and everything it has to offer, having a version on the switch isn't going to retroactively make what you have worse.
They had to come out with a companion app just to get migration to work on a handheld that was actually backwards compatible with the last one, how can you be so certain that not only that is possible, but full compatibility like GSC is on a console that isn't? I don't see how they can get standard trading and battling, even in an ORAS like fashion (which people did complain about in fact).
 
Top