Why is it ok for Pokemon and Nintendo to releases 2 version of same games?

We didnt lick the practice, we did complain back then, we just werent vocal about it because Fates had far bigger issues. Namely the fact that they just released 2 weaksauce campaigns.

As for TO, the routes werent very lenghty, as previously pointed out, they made a fairly small portion of the game, and even if you count the number of actual battles, you will see that there werent that many. Likewise, they clearly didnt put much effort into the battles either. Outside of the one with the Golden Knight and clerics in Law path, and the one that took place in the similar area in the Chaos path, it didnt feel like the devs put much effort into their encounters. Just the next group for you to mow down. They kinda feel like the encounter design in Pokemon. I think TO would have been much more successful, if the campaign was maybe 20 battles long, but cut out all the fat.

The ability to grind, is a weakness the game has. As long term resource management goes out the drain. PotD, the 6 shrines, Pirates Graveyard, The Forest and San Bronsa were cool postgame content though. Even if they were clearly running out of ideas towards the end.

Dont get me wrong, I still like the game, but it is hard to replay.

Weaksauce campaign, still separated. Which my main concern that nobody in media nor the fans really bothered to raise questions when it comes to nintendo.

Again I disagree with Tactics Ogre length. In chapter 2 alone you have to go through average 12 story map battles alongside story revelations that happens in each routes. Chapter 3 even more. More than FE Fates average chapters. I agree on the battle events itself though, game was from PS1 so personally I overlook it but regardless it is still valid.

Thanks and credit to vaderence at gamesfaq for the complete world tarot for Tactics Ogre events.

Chapter 2L:

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad144/vdrX/Ch2L_zpsaebca150.jpg

Chapter 2C:

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad144/vdrX/Ch2C_zpsd4697c10.jpg

Chapter 3L:

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad144/vdrX/Ch3L_zpsacb9c38f.jpg

Chapter 3N:

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad144/vdrX/Ch3N_zpsd326dc7d.jpg

Chapter 3C:

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad144/vdrX/Ch3C_zps724767e1.jpg

Chapter 4:

http://i930.photobucket.com/albums/ad144/vdrX/Ch4_zps672fc81d.jpg

It's ok because it's Nintendo if Sony or ms done this they would be slaughtered.

@robert_sparkes: As they should be. Those companies suck.

Phorompa Wildwood or Pirate's Graveyard, sidequests in Chapter 4 are longer than than the entirety of the early chapters. Same with the Shrines sidequest.

Hell, the final dungeon, had like 22 battles alone. Granted, these were fairly small in scale, and a good chunk of them can be skipped. But my point stands, you will roughy only only change about a fourth of your total campaign with your choices while the Conquest and Birthright vary by like... 80%.

And again, people brought up the concerns about seperated campaigns, but people were still far more concerned about the actual quality. And for a good reason.

@Maroxad: 80% but in reality only 21 of 27 battles per path in FE Fates same quantity as chapter 2 and 3 combined in Tactic Ogre. Not all chapters unique too most is kill all enemies or kill boss. I see it as an advantage, not only a sizable route and overall story length, tactics ogre also have a lengthy side quests. Now that is a great package.

Yeah luckily I dont give a damn. Fking cashgrab not only game story terrible, they even separated the content.

Why would they pass up free money for saps who will buy multiple copies?

Artistically its reasonably justified by the trading, a single player can't just make 3 files to trade to himself, gotta socialize, which is part of the ethos of the game. Makes sense.

Hence why the comparison to other games doesn't really fly.

I think with Pokemon, you were never meant to buy both. The differences are there to encourage trading I think.

As for Fire Emblem, I'm not sure.

As per other reply. Even in first gen you could catch abra, floating rock pokemon and the body builder pokemon (sorry I cant remember their names anymore) in both Red and Blue but you will only get the ultimate evolution through trading with other people.

Don't buy it. I don't plan to. It's not rocket science. Any company can release whatever the **** they want. The problem with crap like releasing two versions of the same game, and even more toxic crap like micro transactions, loot boxes, etc isn't a problem with the companies, it's a problem with the poor state of the average gamer's mentality and inability to say "no" when companies do that. Don't buy shit games, don't support shitty practices such as those, and developers won't do it.

The power of any and all markets rests solely in the hands of the consumer. Be better consumers and the problem goes away.

@eoten: The reason two versions is made is so people will trade with one another. It’s not a shitty practice, it’s a good communication tool and make the games feel more alive. O man, I want a super rare Pokémon, let me trade one of mine to a lady in Japan cause she has a very rare Pokémon that is only there.

There is something you are missing there. A single battle in TO is nowhere near the length of a chapter in FE:Fates. Last time I played, admittedly using the One Vision mod, which rebalnaces the game. Each battle took around 3 "Denam Turns". Each battle is one encounter, while a battle in FE is usually 3 encounters. There is a reason why, Fates, despite containing far fewer encounters, goes for roughly 30 hours while TO lasts 50 hours. Battles in Fates simply put last longer.

There is also so much more effort put into the encoutner design in general too. The encounters of Conquest are very well regarded. So despite it having the worst story of the three Fates games. It is still by far considered to be hte best game of the trio. Only good game even.

@Maroxad: you are also arguing on a PS1 game remastered into PSP game vs game made in 2015 or 16 with all its innovation into the genre tho do remember that. Tactics Ogre still last even lot longer than 50 hours when u finish game plus redoing routes via the world system and all the side quests during and post game. Tactics Ogre able to pack all that content into one game on PS1 and later PSP is all I am arguing. Dont care if FE Fates routes have best gameplay or sucks or whatever else, the topic is why nintendo tends to gets away with this shit separate versions. Even you arguing about which route is not shit instead of actually vocally asking why they even separate it in the first place. They even repackaged the game later and the file size was smaller than 2gb.

But they didn't.

I mentioned repeatedly that people called them out on the 3 routes thing. We were just too busy frying them over the fact that 2 of the 3 campaigns sucked.

And my point with the whole routes thing is that by and large, you are still playing the same game regardless of whether you go law, chaos or neutral. Whereas with Fates, the design between Hoshido and Conquest differs not just in terms of maps and encoutners, but also in design philosophy, and 80% of the game will change dramatically. while it is only about 33% for Tactics Ogre. It was a terrible comparison on your end.

@Maroxad: I will back off for sake of my main point. They have separate designs but do the game itself have to be separated? Nope.

So many game can offers so much content in one package yet here we arguing whether game different enough to be sold as separate games day 1 lol 80-90% my ass. Eh probably just Nintendo fans, arguing why other version sucks instead of asking why the fk u even have to pay for those contents other games offers for free.

I would argue the fact that Nintendo sold poorly thought out products is far more concerning. Especially as they doubled down on everything wrong with Awakening.

You can only complain about the 2 versions for so long, before you run out of stuff to talk about. You can complain about the direction the series took with Awakening -> Birthright/Revelations far longer and have far more intriguing conversations.

Especially now with Three Houses, where every campaign is in one bundle. It is old news and not discussing of a current trend. If the next FE game sells the same game multiple versions you will have a point. Three Houses, still has elements of Awakening left in it. And it did hurt the game. Hence the direction, is of far greater concern.

Three Houses is still good though despite the fact that a part of it stinks of Persona and Awakening. But the game is good in spite of it, rather htan because of it.

Back when Gameboy still relying on link cables, and depending where you live or people owning Gameboys/Color/Advanced, some like myself had to buy both versions (and 3rd version optional) just to trade certain Pokemon for ourselves. I bought Red/Blue/Yellow for that reason, but later on, I only bought Silver and Sapphire, never bother with the other versions as everyone around me had Gameboy/Color/Advanced to trade or battle with people.

When Nintendo DS arrived with Wi-Fi, there's no need to buy both versions and most now just buy one version whichever has the coolest Legendary Pokemon & exclusive Pokemon the player wants to have first.

I will say this isn't a big deal when Nintendo/GameFreak still releasing both versions. Just buy one and call it a day now that we can trade through the internet.

(Don't know about the rest of you all but I really wish Digimon would have token off as Pokemon did but oh well)

@Maroxad: my point is as per thread name, why Nintendo kept getting away with doing these 2 different version of course it is relevant as the reaction to the issue is small. I really dont give a damn whether one version different or whatever the heck you trying to argue how unique it is as my point is other games and publishers will be criticized far harshly doing the same thing as Nintendo. But sure you nintendo fans keep justify by saying other version is reviled or irrelevant to current discussion to dismiss the issue.

As per other replies even in original gen 1, Pokemon Blue or Red there are some pokemon that you could catch on both version but you still need to trade for the ultimate evolution like Abra. I am suggesting why even do 2 version when nintendo themselves now package both game in one cart but lock the versions to which you buy. Just let the players choose which route they want to play at the start of the game and feature pokemon exclusively to that version. Trade online to evolve or get pokemon from the other route.

@sakaixx: Game Freak won’t do that cause they want to encourage more trading. They want to create a world we’re it feels more alive cause you get to communicate with a real person. It’s actually a genius social strategy.

I think Game Freak should had a third version like they did back in the day. More diversity would be pretty welcoming for us Pokémon fans. Let’s go GameFreak!

Watched some gameplay for the first time. Sweet mother of god, i had no idea this game was this fugly. Artistically, it looks like an 8yo drew the art direction, they slapped it in 3D with 2 polygons per pokemon and called it a day. This game is sooooooo much lazier than CoD Vanguard. Daaaamn. I am actually impressed by how lazy and ugly this is.

@mesome713: that is weak excuses considering there pokemon need trading for it to evolve. Trading will happen regardless.

@sakaixx: The more trading the better.

Blah Blah Blah this is nothing new. Its been this way all along. move along nothing more to see here. :)

When it comes to Pokemon, I've always thought of them as separate games and simply buy the one that appeals to me. Each version is a complete experience in and of itself, so I've never felt like I was missing out on anything. I suppose that might grind the gears of the "Gotta catch 'em all!" crowd, but I've never given it a second thought.

It's a business move that they can frame as something that benefits society. They know many people will buy both copies and they get to pocket that extra $. But they get to advertise it as "More social features. Trade with friends or over the internet to collect all the Pokemon."

Surely you realize every company does this or is looking to do this in some way right?

@templecow90999: of course, the question is why is it ok for nintendo to do these practices when other dev and publishers able to pack much more contents into 1 single release.

@sakaixx: uh yeah, hence my point. It’s not like this hasn’t been a big part of the experience even since day one. You could not get machamp (actually there is a npc I think that can get you machamp, to teach you this mechanic), gengar (the fucking goat), alakazam, and golem without trading, which meant with another person; or i guess you got no friends.

There are several common Pokemon (and their evolutions) that are version specific. There were also version specific pokemon as prizes at the game corner. In total, there are about a dozen on each version. It makes sense to have trading requirements to catch em all.

Pokemon was a ground breaking social game that was almost cancelled, because Nintendo was incredibly short sighted and didn't understand a lengthy RPG being handheld only. They didn't understand the social aspect of trading.

@jg4xchamp: my point is again, no reason for versions cause trading happens regardless. Just lock players into one of the legendary pokemon route at start of game with its list of exclusive pokemon no need for 2 separate packaged versions.

that would be limited to an even smaller selection of pokemons (ones that have a third evo, and need it done by trading), what do you actually lose with a 2nd packaged version of the game? Like I get the Fire Emblem complaint, 100%, not the least of which is that they should have only made Conquest, and binned the rest.

But ideally you buy your one copy, catch your pokemon, and then trade to gather the rest, complete the dex. You didn't exactly make a counter point, just highlighted another example of how the game is outright intended for completion not to be done solo, but by actually communicating with another player or other players in the community.

I dont discount the trading aspect as its an important part of the game but the 2 version itself I am not fond off. As my point is, no reason for versions as you are not limited by the social aspect as u can still trade pokemons regardless. You dont need to even communicate that much the global trading section allows u to deposit pokemon and search for pokemon u want.

Again just lock players into one route with its list of exclusive pokemon early game like FE Fates. They have to trade anyway as Pokemon game dont offer multiple saves.

Sure they could just release one version where you pick your one route, and it's done. But they don't, and as is it's not exactly anti-consumer because there is merit to why the game comes as two different versions. I could understand if there was something egregious n shady where you do actually need both versions for the complete experience (fates), but that's not the case here.

So I'm actually not seeing an issue of any merit, other than "i don't like thing".

I dont like versions is partly why the thread is made. Even more that Nintendo and Gamefreak made a definitive edition called Pokemon Platinum. For this remake/remaster they removed Platinum story alterations, gym puzzle improvements, battle frontier, enemy pokemon lvls adjustments and few others. I mean enjoy the game as u like but personally publisher is opting the greed route instead of remaking the definitive edition, selling u a basic remake. The " Pokemon Platinum only have 1 half of both Pearl/Diamond Pokemon!", as said just get players to choose their specific pokemon route early game its just a list of pokemon players encounter.

But eh sure why not, I dont like thing is also valid.

Yeah, I also find it extremely stupid. But it isnt Nintendo's fault. Its Nintendo's fans fault for falling on this cr4p. I mean, if I owned a business and knew my costumers were this gullible and would buy my product twice, no questions asked, I would do it too

Nintendo fans are the most milked, no doubt. Dont know how Sony fans are the ones called cows here tbh

@vatususreturns: How is it Nintendo’s fault when Nintendo don’t even make the game? Cows are milked the most, look at CoD, FIFA, Madden, NBA2k. It’s basically the same game every year and cows drink that milk in gallons.

hum, what?

First I said it wasnt Nintendo's fault BUT Nintendo's fans fault.

Second, Pokemon is a Nintendo franchise owned by Nintendo so any decision about their games fall on Nintendo

CoD, FIFA, Madden and NBA are multiplatform. Many Xbox and PC players buy these games, so dont point the finger to sony fans. And even though they dont improve almost nothing every year, at least they're not the EXACT SAME game with a different cover

For the same reason a company like EA can load up their game with gambling mechanics and other psychologically manipulative monetization strategies:

It's not explicitly illegal.

Honestly the double pokemon games seem cute by comparison.

@vatususreturns: Cows buy the the most. That’s why they are milked the most. Cows love them some dudebro games.

And Nintendo doesn’t decide what GameFreak wants to do. It’s GameFreaks choice.

This is every Nintendo fanboy

I just saw the other day these games have identical ROMs, just each is "flagged" to operate as one version or the other... well, if that don't illustrate how exploitatively inappropriate this whole scheme is I don't know what will.

its almost as bad as sony releasing a game in 2019, then 2020 releasing the "directors cut" for full price, ie ghost of tsushima. Or releasing spiderman in 2018, and the remaster in 2020.

Sunshine, don't move the goal posts on me, because this was hardly brought up in the OP, much less our exchange. If the argument is that the remakes should not be regressing from Platinum, I'm not disagreeing. I'm not aware of the fact that Platinum adds content to Diamond n Pearl.

Because yeah since its D n P remakes, they could have added platinum content to those games. Were the thread about that, I'd agree in a heartbeat. But as is, that's not argument for why they can't do two versions or why it has zero merit in their design decisions. Because yeah a Platinum player by themselves, still needed to interact with a diamond and pearl player no less, to catch em all.

There is no moving goalpost dear rainbows lmao its part of the conversation of why versions is outdated.

Nintendo easily could make 1 version of game and they have done it in past but reverted to 2 version and I am not accepting how they getting a pass. Its just a natural part of the conversation when exploring points of why this thread was made. As said, just let players choose the diamond and pearl pokemon list route in the combined game, its just a list of pokemon people encounter and they still needs to interact with other players for the exclusive pokemon.

lol, pretty much.

Because it's innovative to be milked!

@sakaixx: except they literally didn’t do one version in the past. Yellow and Platinum and emerald and crystal are glorified 3rd versions of a game. A remixed version that still requires the player to interact with the owners of the other versions of the game.

You didn’t pick routes that dictated which 2/3rds of the Pokémon you got, it just got its own set.

Calling those entries just one version is misleading at best.

Could they do just one version? Eh sure. Is anything actually lost if they do multiple? Not really of note. At best someone banking their Pokémon, deleting the save and starting again to get em all without having to interact with anyone….which is entirely avoidable by just using the online trade center in the game. No communication needed.