GNamer Major Writes Site

If no-one objects, I'd like to have a crack at reviewing Pokémon Shuffle.

Go for it

Nah, not really.

Go for it Zero. I'll be interested in reading it.

ZeroJones wrote:

*cracks knuckles*

*and tails for good measure*

Just won the internet.

Crack taken. Er, not that kind of crack - it's just a Pokémon Shuffle review! And thanks, Jimbob! I give my prize back to the people.

Yeah, agree with that review. Was the music track you mentioned the French-sounding one? I always enjoy hearing that whilst playing through.

I have clocked up about 70 hours across 3 consoles and I really do enjoy it and it is important to question just how many games do we get to spend so many hours on for free? Enjoyable ones, not many I guess.

Whilst I generally agree with your views on the game, I do disagree about the difficulty level on the Mega-Pokemon and its design to get money out of you. We can agree that the game is designed to generate money, but where I diverge is the belief that it does not require you to spend anything unless you are impatient to finish it. Of course the Pokemon use "dirty tactics" to "disrupt" you, but isn't the point of a difficulty level? If it were easy to capture them all, there would be no challenge and consequently, no point. After beating 100+ Pokemon it is ridiculously easy to beat the first ten all over again, showing that the challenge is gradual.

I am up to Stage 120 and having all sorts of difficulty beating Mega-Glailie without using anything, so I just use my time battling the Expert, just to level up the needed Pokemon to beat said Mega-Glailie. Along the way, I actually pick up the odd Expert, although it is only 4 (first 3 and Charizard) so far, but that levelling up is still enjoyable. My point is that the game doesn't need money to win, it just needs persistence and the chatter I hear about leeching money from is completely wrong.

I do love the music though and whilst the graphics aren't stretching any hardware, they are really nice to look at. If they made a full game of this, with high level graphics, a bit of a story and every Pokemon, I would buy it as a retail game in a heartbeat.

I have to disagree with your opinion about the Mega Pokemen, OS - they absolutely are designed to get money out of your average player. Granted, there'll be those with patience like yourself, or those with foresight like myself (after reading everyone's horror stories regarding the Megas, I hoarded my coins and free Jewels to handle the buggers) who will get past them, but the average player is either going to switch the game off or be forced to spend money to pass them. Sure, they should be more difficult than your usual level, but with limited tries, the later Megas are designed to be a roadblock in order to convince the player to spend some money.

JayMoyles wrote:

I have to disagree with your opinion about the Mega Pokemen, OS - they absolutely are designed to get money out of your average player. Granted, there'll be those with patience like yourself, or those with foresight like myself (after reading everyone's horror stories regarding the Megas, I hoarded my coins and free Jewels to handle the buggers) who will get past them, but the average player is either going to switch the game off or be forced to spend money to pass them. Sure, they should be more difficult than your usual level, but with limited tries, the later Megas are designed to be a roadblock in order to convince the player to spend some money.

And I have to disagree as well, as people not playing the game smart isn't the fault of the game. All the game does is give a cost-based option to those who fail to plan or aren't very good at it. No-one is forced to do anything, as although I am not there yet, I imagine it is possible to complete, or near complete the game without any spend. This is about choice. Sure, it isn't particularly subtle in broadcasting the spending option after every fail, but I really don't see the problem. A loss is no different to repeating the task in any full price game.

oldschool wrote:

 A loss is no different to repeating the task in any full price game.

But it absolutely is. Here, a loss means having to wait thirty minutes to try again, which is totally designed to squeeze some money from its players. I can understand where you're coming from though, as I've played through this without spending any money. Microtransactions irk me, but all the content is technically available without spending money.

What does irk me is when content is likely unavailable without spending money on the game - Nintendo are releasing the Lucarionite Mega Stone to the top 20,000 scoring players on a weekly challenge they've put up, and you can buy power ups on this stage. There's a very high chance that unless you buy these power ups, you won't be one of the top 20,000, and you'll lose out on this piece of content. I've seen it happen with WWE Supercard, a free to play Top Trumps style game. They had a similar high-score style system released regularly, and the rewards went to those who spent money on the game, unsurprisingly. It saddens me - I didn't want to see Nintendo going down this path.

JayMoyles wrote:

Yeah, agree with that review. Was the music track you mentioned the French-sounding one? I always enjoy hearing that whilst playing through.

Oui! I can imagine it playing when Layton enters a café in the early stages of the game.

oldschool wrote:

I have clocked up about 70 hours across 3 consoles and I really do enjoy it and it is important to question just how many games do we get to spend so many hours on for free?  Enjoyable ones, not many I guess.  

Whilst I generally agree with your views on the game, I do disagree about the difficulty level on the Mega-Pokemon and its design to get money out of you.  We can agree that the game is designed to generate money, but where I diverge is the belief that it does not require you to spend anything unless you are impatient to finish it.  Of course the Pokemon use "dirty tactics" to "disrupt" you, but isn't the point of a difficulty level?  If it were easy to capture them all, there would be no challenge and consequently, no point.  After beating 100+ Pokemon it is ridiculously easy to beat the first ten all over again, showing that the challenge is gradual.

I am up to Stage 120 and having all sorts of difficulty beating Mega-Glailie without using anything, so I just use my time battling the Expert, just to level up the needed Pokemon to beat said Mega-Glailie.  Along the way, I actually pick up the odd Expert, although it is only 4 (first 3 and Charizard) so far, but that levelling up is still enjoyable.  My point is that the game doesn't need money to win, it just needs persistence and the chatter I hear about leeching money from is completely wrong.

I do love the music though and whilst the graphics aren't stretching any hardware, they are really nice to look at.  If they made a full game of this, with high level graphics, a bit of a story and every Pokemon, I would buy it as a retail game in a heartbeat.

The tone of the review tipped more to one side than the other; I should have noted that I've not spent any money on it so far. You are of course not required to spend any money on the game whatsoever: these are both points that I concede.

However, a difficulty level should be designed to increase gradually - there's a reason it gets called a 'difficulty curve' - but I feel that the Mega 'mon, which I think of as bosses, represent difficulty spikes that are not consistent with the rest of the game (or within themselves as a separate species: by the time you've beaten Mega-Glalie, there are no harder ones left, imo). This all points to them being designed to get money off the player.

Jay I do agree that it is designed to generate money, that is the business model of a FTP, and microtransactions irk me as much as they irk you ,and I never enter into them. However I still think that failing is no different to losing in a regular game and having to wait 30 minutes is just a side issue. A player could be just like us, play your five turns, then do something else for two and a half hours and repeat. The fact that it makes you wait is a good thing in certain respects as you are possibly eager to continue, rather than burning yourself out quickly. In that respect it is like the Mii Plaza games, and I look forward to those still after all this time.

I haven't played the online one yet, but I figured there would be a catch. Whilst I find it irritating that there will be a part I can't get, I feel that even if i did buy items to improve my chances, there is little to no chance I would get in the top 20,000 anyway. It is a clever financial manoeuvre by Nintendo, one I don't like but at the same time don't really care too much about either.

Zero, you are likely right that the spike in difficulty with Mega Glalie is too high, but it doesn't bother me. I know I will get it eventually if I am still enjoying it. In the end I think there is too much thought being put into how this game is all about money when it clearly is, but doesn't require you to do it if you don't want to, whilst still getting a ridiculous amount of free entertainment. Keep in mind, I have never played Candy Crush, so I don't what its competitors are like and don't plan to.

If anything, Candy Crush is more abrasive (it constantly asks for you to connect your Facebook and pester your friends for power-ups).

I've got a question - is Pokemon Link Battle worth picking up? I do like the concept of Pokemon Shuffle, but as I've outlined above, the microtransactions are a really problem for me enjoying the game. If anyone's interested by the by, I'd probably give Pokemon Shuffle a 6/10.

JayMoyles wrote:

If anything, Candy Crush is more abrasive (it constantly asks for you to connect your Facebook and pester your friends for power-ups).

I've got a question - is Pokemon Link Battle worth picking up? I do like the concept of Pokemon Shuffle, but as I've outlined above, the microtransactions are a really problem for me enjoying the game. If anyone's interested by the by, I'd probably give Pokemon Shuffle a 6/10.

I don't do scores, but I would give it my Enjoyed (a lot) rating. My only other ratings are Disliked and Middling. I find it addictive in a good way and like the aspect of 10 minutes play every two and a half hours. The microtransactions don't bother me because I can ignore it. As for Candy Crush, I really get sick of my friends playing it appearing on my Facebook, but again, I can just ignore that as well.

I will also like to hear if anyone hs played Link Battle as I am thinking about getting it.

A Link: Battle!er over here! The games are really very similar in terms of the actual tile matching bits, but in Link: Battle! you

1) are guaranteed to catch a beaten 'mon;
2) face a number of monsters in a row with one energy bar, and bonus ones appear provided you fulfil certain unseen criteria;
3) have no Mega Stone facility and can only bring a limited number of Pokémon with you, which increases when you beat certain worlds;
4) have unlimited moves, in theory, and do not have to wait to try again; and
5) can catch all 718 Pokémon, who do not level up as in Shuffle.

The difficulty spikes are still present: whenever you face the final 'mon in a level, they're always that little bit tougher, particularly with a depleted energy bar. Overall, I feel I've had similar amounts of enjoyment out of both.

Ah, a shame. I like the levelling up/not guaranteed chance to catch a 'Mon part of Shuffle, so a game like that stripped of microtransactions would be right up my alley.

Sounds decent Zero, I think I will have to give it more serious consideration.

I wrote a thing about Rezzed.

Starts off slow, but ends brilliantly - like a good JRPG.

Drunka's visit to Rezzed, as directed by M. Night Shyamalan.

Had a read about the games,  I'm pretty sure Gang Beasts is coming to PlayStation 4 as a exclusive not sure if timed or what not.

Edit also coming to VITA but from I can see it's Steam all versions like running on Linux and PS4. Looking it's being published by Double Fine who we know have a very good relationship with Sony but might just be timed but nothing saying it is.

Drunka's piece is amazing. Subtle, like. Really, really enjoyed.

So the interview is up for the one game, I have updated the Indie Week page with it as well. Some of your questions were used, hope you check it out.