In this thread I wish to take a look into a series of three spin-off games: the Pokemon Ranger series. This series is probably best known for being the games where Manaphy eggs could be obtained; after beating a downloadable/unlockable mission, one could send a Manaphy egg to a Generation IV game.
Anybody who has actually played these games, however, knows that they are vastly different from the canon games. They resemble each other in being RPGs and featuring Pokemon and a villainous team; the similarities end there. Whereas the main series feature two Pokemon fighting each other in turn-based battles, the Ranger series require the main character himself to capture the Pokemon by drawing loops around it with his Styler. A captured Pokemon can help the Ranger out once, be it by assisting in a capture or by clearing targets in the overworld, and is released afterwards - the exception being the Ranger's partner Pokemon, who can't clear targets in the overworld, but stays with him throughout the game. Naturally, these game mechanics can come off as slightly... unusual (some of my friends, who are also into Pokemon, never understood how I could possibly want to play this series), but that doesn't have to stop the games from being enjoyable or good :)
I'm mainly interested to know if there are more people around here who have played these games, how they liked them, and, especially, why they did or did not consider them to be good games. Any memories and anecdotes are always appreciated of course. (Also, if you have a favorite within these games, please mention/explain which one, I'm very interested in hearing it)
Just some stuff to consider, I don't care if you follow these points, but in any case this should provide sufficient inspiration:
1) Game mechanics. The most obvious example is the capture styler, which is a rather controversial mechanic in my experience. Other examples include field moves, the rides on the beasts and the underwater chases from Guardian Signs, etc.
2) Level of difficulty. Most people, including me, appreciate video games being somewhat challenging. This doesn't necessarily have to be Valley of Death (Zelda II) calibre challenging, but naturally beating a game is much more rewarding if it actually required some effort. As for the Ranger series, I reckon it's pretty debatable whether the series is actually all that challenging. Also, the different capture mechanics between the games naturally involve a different level of difficulty within the series; a system of consecutive loops plays very different from an HP system.
3) Storyline. This is a highly prominent feature in these games, much moreso than in the main series, especially the older gens. This can be taken two ways. On the one hand, a good story obviously contributes to a good game; on the other hand, a prominent storyline naturally involves much more hand-holding, simply because there are more events the player must be guided past. In any case, if a series is highly reliant on the storyline, they'd better make sure it's a good one.
4) Atmosphere. This affects a game's experience to a great extent. Using an example from the Legend of Zelda series, the adult part from Ocarina of Time has a much darker atmosphere than the goofy Link's Awakening. However, in both cases the atmosphere adds a lot to the respective games, giving it distinctive colours, and in both cases it works. As for the Pokemon Ranger series, I found these games to be very lighthearted for Pokemon standards. Anybody who considers the Lift Key grunt from Pokemon Red to be a buffoon has never run into any Go-Rock Squad member.
5) Non-essential content. By this, I mean any content that is not required to beat the main storyline. The first game is quite barebones and essentially devoid of this content, only requiring a few post-game missions and the completion of the browser. The second and third game, however, also feature various sidequests where the player can earn power-ups; they are not required for beating the main storyline, only for completing the browser. Some people can consider this to be a valuable addition to the series; other people can consider this to be tedious and give up on completing the browser because of it.
Finally, please do not judge these games relative to the canon games, I know those are better. It's perfectly fine, however, to compare some game mechanics/story arcs etc. to the main series (guilty as charged; you can also compare them to Zelda or Worms or whatever for all I care), but try evaluating them as games in their own right, rather than as spin-offs.
Anybody who has actually played these games, however, knows that they are vastly different from the canon games. They resemble each other in being RPGs and featuring Pokemon and a villainous team; the similarities end there. Whereas the main series feature two Pokemon fighting each other in turn-based battles, the Ranger series require the main character himself to capture the Pokemon by drawing loops around it with his Styler. A captured Pokemon can help the Ranger out once, be it by assisting in a capture or by clearing targets in the overworld, and is released afterwards - the exception being the Ranger's partner Pokemon, who can't clear targets in the overworld, but stays with him throughout the game. Naturally, these game mechanics can come off as slightly... unusual (some of my friends, who are also into Pokemon, never understood how I could possibly want to play this series), but that doesn't have to stop the games from being enjoyable or good :)
I'm mainly interested to know if there are more people around here who have played these games, how they liked them, and, especially, why they did or did not consider them to be good games. Any memories and anecdotes are always appreciated of course. (Also, if you have a favorite within these games, please mention/explain which one, I'm very interested in hearing it)
Just some stuff to consider, I don't care if you follow these points, but in any case this should provide sufficient inspiration:
1) Game mechanics. The most obvious example is the capture styler, which is a rather controversial mechanic in my experience. Other examples include field moves, the rides on the beasts and the underwater chases from Guardian Signs, etc.
2) Level of difficulty. Most people, including me, appreciate video games being somewhat challenging. This doesn't necessarily have to be Valley of Death (Zelda II) calibre challenging, but naturally beating a game is much more rewarding if it actually required some effort. As for the Ranger series, I reckon it's pretty debatable whether the series is actually all that challenging. Also, the different capture mechanics between the games naturally involve a different level of difficulty within the series; a system of consecutive loops plays very different from an HP system.
3) Storyline. This is a highly prominent feature in these games, much moreso than in the main series, especially the older gens. This can be taken two ways. On the one hand, a good story obviously contributes to a good game; on the other hand, a prominent storyline naturally involves much more hand-holding, simply because there are more events the player must be guided past. In any case, if a series is highly reliant on the storyline, they'd better make sure it's a good one.
4) Atmosphere. This affects a game's experience to a great extent. Using an example from the Legend of Zelda series, the adult part from Ocarina of Time has a much darker atmosphere than the goofy Link's Awakening. However, in both cases the atmosphere adds a lot to the respective games, giving it distinctive colours, and in both cases it works. As for the Pokemon Ranger series, I found these games to be very lighthearted for Pokemon standards. Anybody who considers the Lift Key grunt from Pokemon Red to be a buffoon has never run into any Go-Rock Squad member.
5) Non-essential content. By this, I mean any content that is not required to beat the main storyline. The first game is quite barebones and essentially devoid of this content, only requiring a few post-game missions and the completion of the browser. The second and third game, however, also feature various sidequests where the player can earn power-ups; they are not required for beating the main storyline, only for completing the browser. Some people can consider this to be a valuable addition to the series; other people can consider this to be tedious and give up on completing the browser because of it.
Finally, please do not judge these games relative to the canon games, I know those are better. It's perfectly fine, however, to compare some game mechanics/story arcs etc. to the main series (guilty as charged; you can also compare them to Zelda or Worms or whatever for all I care), but try evaluating them as games in their own right, rather than as spin-offs.
Last edited: