Interesting Colosseum Idea...

[RattataGuy]

Remember back when the very first Stadium came out in Japan, even though it was well recieved it didn't do well? I'm not talking about our first Pokemon Stadium (which was actually Pokemon Stadium 2)...but the first PS. It only supported about half of the existing pokemon at the time and seemed to be a rushed producted, just like Pokemon Colosseum has turned out to be.

Perhaps if Nintendo hears the same sort of outcry it did when that first PS came out, they would be prompted to publish an improved Pokemon Colosseum 2 in a reasonably quick time?

[Number1ChanseyFan]

I am not really disappointed in Pokémon Colosseum. Sure, Nintendo didn't get the most out of the Gamecube's graphic abilities, but the graphics are still solid, and the moves have some nice graphics. I would have liked it if the Pokémon could "talk," but overall, I am pleased with Colosseum, it is a fun game, and it isn't like the graphics are bad. Colosseum's gameplay was nice, and the storyline was good too. I think that Nintendo did a good job with Colosseum overall.

[Linc]

I am not really disappointed in Pokémon Colosseum. Sure, Nintendo didn't get the most out of the Gamecube's graphic abilities, but the graphics are still solid, and the moves have some nice graphics. I would have liked it if the Pokémon could "talk," but overall, I am pleased with Colosseum, it is a fun game, and it isn't like the graphics are bad. Colosseum's gameplay was nice, and the storyline was good too. I think that Nintendo did a good job with Colosseum overall.
I agree with you chanseyfan.

[RattataGuy]

Oh, don't misunderstand me, I enjoy PokéCol a great deal. I'm just disappointed with the stuff that apparently "didn't make the cut."

I fully expected a whole new batch of minigames, being able to see your Secret Base in 3D, the level specific cups (lvl 5 battles are some of the most strategic), the library, the lab (one of my favorite things to do is compare the pokedex flavor texts between games, but there aren't any in Col), and once the Fly glitch had been corrected, don't you think that it should have STAYED corrected? Even though there are some attacks that really look better - Flamethrower, Solarbeam etc - there are too many that are just combinations of circles, lines and particle effects: look at Defense Curl! It was a lot better looking in the Stadium games. Now it's just a Sphere and a Cube (poorly) overlaid the pokemon model! And lets not get into the fact that the "stat up/stat down" effects destroy the illusion of 3 dimensions for the most part.

Also I'm not a computer engineer, but I'm almost certain there could have been a way for the Cube to understand and interpret data from the previous generation of Pokemon games. The whole endeavor seemed rushed; and the result was a half-baked 3D pokemon RPG, not the 3D fighting arenas that we've come to love in Stadiums 1 and 2.

There was just so much that could have been done with this game, and so much more that could have been done a whole lot better. :notfunny:

Pokemon Colosseum is good but it's far from quality games that Pokémon Stadiums 1 and 2 were. I just thought I'd point that out.

[Poryhedron]

Also I'm not a computer engineer, but I'm almost certain there could have been a way for the Cube to understand and interpret data from the previous generation of Pokemon games.
Weelll...part of the problem is that some of the data RS-generation games need is not present in any form in RBYGSC. For example, RBYGSC pokémon only have one Special IV. Also, Effort Values were handled completely differently. There is no proper conversion between the two models. And then there's natures...how would you assign them? All RBYGSC pokémon have the stats of a neutral nature. Should they all end up with one? Bear in mind that natures affect not only stats but also the use of certain hold-item Berries.

[RattataGuy]

Weelll...part of the problem is that some of the data RS-generation games need is not present in any form in RBYGSC. For example, RBYGSC pokémon only have one Special IV. Also, Effort Values were handled completely differently. There is no proper conversion between the two models. And then there's natures...how would you assign them? All RBYGSC pokémon have the stats of a neutral nature. Should they all end up with one? Bear in mind that natures affect not only stats but also the use of certain hold-item Berries.

Write some software that would check for certain aspects of the Pokemon. Then based on that data, you can tell which version the pokemon came from for example:

If the pokemon only has a Special stat - RBY
If the pokemon has a both Sp. Atk and Sp. Def - GSC
If the pokemon has a nature - RuSa/FrLg

Probably not those exact things, but the point is that there ARE some things that make the Pokemon on my Red cartridge completely distinct from my Gold or Ruby pokemon.

Then, depending on the version have the GameCube software temporarily assign a random nature, IV and such so that a RBY could battle a RuSa. Then make some feasible plot device to explain what's going on.

"Prof. Oak: It's now possible to send pokemon through time, except the further in the past the pokemon comes from the more it is affected from its trip through time." Something like that would explain how a RBY pokemon recieved a nature and extra "genes".

Then again, this is only hypothetical given how easy it is to overcome the programming/hardware differences between a GBC and a GBA.

[Poryhedron]

Well, the problem there is you'd be assigning them randomly...I, for one, don't believe it's appropriate for the same exact pokémon to be Brave in one session and Timid the next, or for an Alakazam to have a Special (Attack, Defense, whichever you'd choose to randomly generate) IV of 29 in one session and 3 the next. Plus, we're talking about a very real possibility of Hidden Power constantly changing elements...seriously, if Nintendo wanted the engine shift to be bypassable, they would have found a way to do it in Ruby/Sapphire.