[QUOTE="IBEX333"]

Hey guys.... Quick question here... If I have one of the rescent DS games such as HG/SS or Plat, is there a reason to play Sapphire/Ruby and Emerald on the GBA and then import missing pokemon into DS? I am having trouble understanding how pokemon are traded and how they are imported from one game to another. Basically I just want to have as many pokemon as possible in a game which I can eventually take online and battle other folks.

If I could only have 3 pokemon games, which ones would you recommend? And if I could only have one?

I know this info is out there, but I could spend days online trying to understand this stuff or I can just ask you guys. I am way past the age where I can afford sitting home doing pokemon research - I just want to have fun and hopefully catch 'em all! ; )

ANIMEguy10034

You can play Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald/FireRed/LeafGreen for those rare 3rd gen legendaries and starters, but most pokemon should appear if you own both Platinum and HG/SS and obtained every event item and legendary.

To transfer pokemon from GBA to DS, you will need a DSphat or lite. When the GBA game is inserted into your DS, an option to migrate will appear on your game menu. This is where you decide which pokemon you want to migrate. Your pokemon cannot migrate if they have a HM and you cannot send them back to your GBA game. When you're done, head to Pal Park (after obtaining the National Pokedex). Pal Park is located South West from Sandgem Town in Platinum and in Fuchsia City in HG/SS. When you enter, you will need to search for the 6 pokemon you migrated and catch them.

To trade pokemon, you just need to go inside the PokeCenter. Downstairs for Wi-Fi, upstairs for wireless. You will need to exchange FriendCodes with the person you want to trade with.

If you can only have 3 pokemon games, I'll recommend Platinum and either version of HG/SS. Don't think about Diamond/Pearl, Platinum is MUCH better. If you can only have one, pick Platinum if you want an easier time training pokemon or HG/SS if you prefer a longer game with 2 regions and 16 gyms(instead of the usual 8..). Platinum has an original story while HG/SS are remakes to Gold/Silver/Crystal. Hard choice. :|

I haven't "catched 'em all," but I'm close to seeing 'em all. :P
I've seen 483 pokemon out of 493 in Platinum. 8 of those 10 missing pokemon are in my HG, but I need another DS to trade with. :(
The other 2 are Mew and Celebi, but we're still waiting for their event.

Thanks very much for a quick and thorough reply! Another question if you don't mind. Let's say I transferred "Treeko" from Emerald to Platinum. Can I then transfer that same "Treeko" from Platinum to HG or SS?

Hey guys.... Quick question here... If I have one of the rescent DS games such as HG/SS or Plat, is there a reason to play Sapphire/Ruby and Emerald on the GBA and then import missing pokemon into DS? I am having trouble understanding how pokemon are traded and how they are imported from one game to another. Basically I just want to have as many pokemon as possible in a game which I can eventually take online and battle other folks.

If I could only have 3 pokemon games, which ones would you recommend? And if I could only have one?

I know this info is out there, but I could spend days online trying to understand this stuff or I can just ask you guys. I am way past the age where I can afford sitting home doing pokemon research - I just want to have fun and hopefully catch 'em all! ; )

Deadspace.

I'd give Witcher at least 9.5, simply for the devs being brave, and trying something new. Most devs only care about money, so they try to stay as close as possible to what succeeded in the past. I'm sick ant tired of that. There's very little innovation these days.

Witcher is finally somethign new. Some of the new stuff is awesome, some not so much, but the important thing, is that the devs are TRYING for a change!

They were not afraid to put mature content into the game, and I applaud them for that. Screw the whiny puritans! If anyone thinks this game has "inappropriate" content, DONT PLAY IT! But please, leave those who like the game THE HELL ALONE!

Witcher is a gem in a sea of mediocre crap.

I am wondering if I should play supreme commander and I need some opinions.

My impression of the demo was very negative.(to say the least)

I was hoping this game would be like Total Annihilation - fast paced, fun and strategic.

Out of all things, one thing SupCom is NOT is fast paced. This game is SLOOOOWWWWWWW. And not slow as in lagging - it's butter smooth, mind you. It unfolds extremely slow. It taks FOREVER to build up your base and obtain high tech things like nukes and experimental weapons. I understand off course, that a player is not supposed to have acess to these things fast but c'mon! Almost an hour in real time to get a nuke?!!!!!!!!

I tried putting engineers on assist... I had like 20 of them assisting the build process... Still takes FOREVER, and the absurd amount of mass and energy required creates more and more problems and requires more and more building.. It's a vicious cycle that can easily drive the player(me) nuts!

Command and Conquer or Dawn of War in comparison might not have so much "depth" or sophistication" but they encourage the player to go out there, be agressive and the gameplay is all about SPEED. Sheer brutal speed. You snooze, you loose!

Supcom allows the player to turtle in if he so chooses. Off course in SupCom being agressive will still help you win, but you can last a long time by being a "turtle".

Off course the fact that the maps are huge is cool, because it allows massive armies and in turn creates battles that resemble waht hapens in real life. Hovever, getting from one end of the map to the other can literally take a very long time especially traveling by land. Do I as a player want to spend so much real life time playing the game?! Off course not!

In the time it takes to get to high tech units and have some fun in SupCom, I can finish 5x times more games in C&C3, COH and DOW!!

The formation system is very bad. You have to use a button combo on the keyboard to change formations, when other games allow you to do this with a mouse click on an icon OR a button combo. It's not that I cant use keyboard shortcuts, it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing! The system requirements are ABSURD. It's a good thing I have a system powerful enough, but what about others? Do the devs want people to actually PLAY the game or drool over the box on the shelf in the store?!

Is this game really as bad as I think it is, or is there something I dont know that allows the player to speed things up and get to a nuke or an experimental unit in 10 minutes or less?

The earliest I can see Halo2 coming out for PC is a year from it's console release. That being said, it may NEVER come out on PC.

IMO, that would be the wisest choice. Every time a console game is released on PC the gap between consoles and PC's is narrowed. The Xbox360 is already essentialy a computer. I am sure console makers dont want consoles to be merged with PCs because that will eventually kill the consoles. (not that I care)

I know the OP didnt ask for my opinion on this whole thing, but I feel like saying it anyway: LET HALO STAY ON CONSOLES.

The PC has by far more excellent shooters than consoles do, and even if that wasnt the case, no console controller can compare to a high precision mouse.

If you want to play console games, GET A CONSOLE. If you cant afford one, wait till you can. Be content with the PC you already have. I know that one can never get enough, but the sooner you change your outlook on life the better off you'll be. I hope you know what I mean. If you dont, you will one day. ;)