• Our software update is now concluded. You will need to reset your password to log in. In order to do this, you will have to click "Log in" in the top right corner and then "Forgot your password?".
  • Welcome to PokéCommunity! Register now and join one of the best fan communities on the 'net to talk Pokémon and more! We are not affiliated with The Pokémon Company or Nintendo.

6th Gen Were the ORAS games just as good as the originals?

Which games were better?

  • Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald

    Votes: 14 17.9%
  • Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire

    Votes: 49 62.8%
  • Neither was significantly better/worse than the other

    Votes: 15 19.2%

  • Total voters
    78

Altairis

take me ☆ take you
5,188
Posts
11
Years
  • Or better? Why do you think one is better than the other? Do you think it was worth purchasing ORAS if one could snag an original copy? I'm just interested to see how it measured up and what the general opinion is!
     

    ugtgrime

    Lomax
    104
    Posts
    10
    Years
  • I've only played a few hours on omega ruby so far. But from what I've seen do far I do prefer it to the original. I think it's because of the mass amount of content and new mechanics.
     

    Laguna

    Sir Zangoose
    1,659
    Posts
    9
    Years
    • Age 25
    • Seen Aug 31, 2016
    I personally think ORAS is a lot better then the originals with all of the added content, plus they toned down on all the more annoying parts of the game. The only thing I would like to see is some sort of Battle Frontier like in Emerald, because frankly the Battle Resort as it is in ORAS is terribly disappointing.
     
    50,218
    Posts
    13
    Years
  • I enjoyed OR/AS much better than the originals. The modern mechanics and physical/special split made using most of the Pokemon much more effective compared to back then, and while there was some features that people were happy with such as DexNav, it still had the disappointment of having a Battle Maison as opposed to the Battle Frontier many wanted but granted this is not an Emerald remake. All the new Mega Evolutions are great to use as well.
     
    Last edited:

    Pinkie-Dawn

    Vampire Waifu
    9,528
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • OR/AS still kept the same problems the originals had before, but the mechanics made it better than the originals, so that gives it an edge.
     
    14
    Posts
    9
    Years
  • I prefer ORAS. It's cool, it's a bit easier in the control department than XY (damn you, rollerskates!) and it really, really looks stunning. I never cared very much about Sapphire but it was good, Emerald was great, but ORAS is simply better. The only thing I'd loved to see was the Battle Frontier, as does everybody else. Maybe it'll come in DLC?

    Another small nuisance is the way the world has been divided in blocks, something that RSE didn't have as much, IIRC. This is certainly noticeable in the ocean between Lilycove/Evergrande/Slateport.
     
    55
    Posts
    9
    Years
    • Seen Feb 18, 2021
    ORAS was definitely an improvement over the originals, just because it has more stuff really.
     

    AquaMarine8

    One less, one less problem~
    246
    Posts
    9
    Years
  • I picked "neither are significantly better or worse than the other". I do love R/S/E just as much as OR/AS. Playing them back in the day was just as awesome as playing OR/AS are now, to me.
     

    Rogue-Paladin-Mirage

    JolleRaptors!
    12
    Posts
    10
    Years
    • Age 25
    • Seen Jun 22, 2017
    The Originals were better

    I pretty much liked the old games. i mean- they have the feels and stuff. The 3ds games never really had that effect on me
     

    Bounsweet

    Fruit Pokémon
    2,103
    Posts
    16
    Years
    • Seen Sep 17, 2018
    RSE are probably the most nostalgic for me, so I love them a lot on a subjective level. More objectively speaking, ORAS had much, much better mechanics plus all of the new features that weren't around when RSE were out. I think they carried over the atmosphere reallly well, too.

    So I mean, looking at it from that point of view, I'd say ORAS were definitely better.
     

    Dreg

    Done after the GT.
    1,496
    Posts
    12
    Years
    • Seen Jul 11, 2016
    ORAS ended up being my favorite pokemon games, mainly because I loved the originals, and there were so many things that were implemented into the game over the originals. I played it for a long time, and I enjoyed it a lot more. So yeah, ORAS wins by a longshot.
     
    22,953
    Posts
    19
    Years
  • ORAS were better just simply based off of the improved mechanics and pacing of play.

    RSE had some nostalgia value and cloning (plus the Emerald Battle Frontier was quite a bit of fun), but surfing felt like it took hours in RSE, versus in ORAS where it didn't feel anywhere near that long.
     

    blue

    gucci
    21,057
    Posts
    16
    Years
  • I think ORAS are better than the originals. They did have some minor flaws, but overall I think the games recreated Hoenn perfectly. Not only that but they also introduced the updated game mechanics and added a few awesome features too.
     
    4,569
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen May 28, 2019
    The only addition that ORAS added that I'd say is worth it DexNav and faster surfing. Otherwise, you wouldn't lose a thing by playing the originals.

    The only thing ORAS improved on RS is the surfing. Everything else is an added addition or just updated to the current standards. NOTHING is actually improved beyond the surfing.

    Actually I prefer the originals by far because it's 60fps, way easier and more streamlined to navigate, actually looks good (ORAS is butt ugly outside of battles), has the better music, doesn't play as clunky at all and most of all isn't bloated.

    Oh and it has the safari zone. I love safari zone. :| Not to mention the better Mauville (the new one just not fun to navigate. At all.) and Granite Cave.

    edit: Are we counting Emerald? Because I hope to god none of you are suggesting ORAS is as good as Emerald.
    Emerald improved on the original RS's flaws. ORAS carried over RS's flaws. ORAS made the big mistake of staying true to the original's designs while ignoring the actual, improved version.
     
    Last edited:

    Cerberus87

    Mega Houndoom, baby!
    1,639
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • Actually I prefer the originals by far because it's 60fps, way easier and more streamlined to navigate, actually looks good (ORAS is butt ugly outside of battles), has the better music, doesn't play as clunky at all and most of all isn't bloated.

    60 fps came at a graphical cost too large to ignore. It wasn't nearly as impressive as it could've been, and IMO barely better than Crystal. Sprites were far worse than Crystal and used dubious colors. Effects weren't impressive, sometimes copied from previous games.

    I hate the stuttering 6th gen has but IMO even worse than that is when the game looks unimpressive and rather bland like RSE and FRLG did.
     
    4,569
    Posts
    15
    Years
    • Seen May 28, 2019
    I said looked good, didn't say it looked great or anything.

    I'm aware RSE aren't exactly pushing the hardware. Mother 3 looks like it's on a completely different level in comparison.
    CscF31I.png
    fDzTTsB.png


    Rpsu1RK.png
    wJsHkTs.png


    But it's not bad or ugly. Just really simple, which I'd take over looking jagged and ugly any day. Bonus for 60fps.
     

    bobandbill

    one more time
    16,938
    Posts
    16
    Years
  • I said looked good, didn't say it looked great or anything.

    I'm aware RSE aren't exactly pushing the hardware. Mother 3 looks like it's on a completely different level in comparison.
    CscF31I.png
    fDzTTsB.png


    Rpsu1RK.png
    wJsHkTs.png


    But it's not bad or ugly. Just really simple, which I'd take over looking jagged and ugly any day. Bonus for 60fps.
    To be fair to RSE, Mother 3 benefited from a much longer development time, and a later release to RSE too iirc (e.g. how the sound from that game is so much better than RSE's trumpets - by then people figured out how to do sound on the GBA). May be a bit of an unfair comparison. =p

    I did miss some things in Emerald - e.g. the number of double battles it had, a certain frontier, etc. I also dislike some of the things that went missing (Granite Cave, or at least needing to explore it to find Steven [don't mind redesigns to caves], the Berry mixing game). But overall I feel its polishing (surfing IS better, the improvements to Team Magma/Aqua plots, revamped secret bases) and additions (DEXNAV, Sea Mauville sidestory, soaring, Delta episode) outweighs those disappointments personally.

    Also don't care too much for the 60 fps RSE had - it was neat but not something I care much about - nor do I fell ORAS was 'butt ugly' in its overworld. But each to their own, haha - beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'm fine with how ORAS looked, although it'd be nice for 3D in the overworld by now, Game Freak.
     

    Cerberus87

    Mega Houndoom, baby!
    1,639
    Posts
    11
    Years
  • But it's not bad or ugly. Just really simple, which I'd take over looking jagged and ugly any day. Bonus for 60fps.

    Pokémon is turn-based RPG. It's not a precision game (like i.e. Star Fox). Doesn't need 60 fps. 30 is enough.

    4th gen for example wasn't slow because of fps, but untapped potential in hardware and possibly poor coding. How were GF able to do faster health bars and transitions in 5th gen with same hardware and pseudo 3D arenas as opposed to 2D graphics in 4th gen? Even Platinum and HGSS are faster than DP. BW saves faster than DPPt too, obviously not due to fps but hardware utilization.

    The 3D models alone in XYORAS are a lot better looking than any sprite in RSEFRLG. The 3rd gen sprites are among the worst in the series, only superior to certain 1st and 2nd gen sprites, and not even all of them. It also saves GF the need to make a 3D arena battling Pokémon game on the Wii U, since the 3DS is more than enough for that and the effects look very pretty.

    The better way is to achieve balance. If your game hits 60 fps but looks like a pile of turd you won't impress the mainstream buyer. Console makers have always tried to demonstrate what their machines are capable of, and this isn't achieved by 60 fps but better looks since those create the first impression and you can give up a few fps if needed. There's an ideal balance between fluidity and eyecandy for each machine and each gamer. 60 fps should be a ceiling rather than a medium number, especially since above 60 fps count is irrelevant to most gamers, not cost effective in the case of people who want the eyecandy, and not interesting for people who give more importance to immersion by graphics rather than fluidity. Consoles themselves shouldn't even be trying to aspire to constant 60 fps, because they're too weak for that.

    I remember in some N64 games you could switch between low and highres modes. I preferred the lowres mode in Perfect Dark because it was faster while still looking better than Rare's previous title Goldeneye. But it still wasn't 60 fps. And the gameplay was adjusted for that, since N64 controller doesn't provide same precision as mouse aiming, and guards reacted slower. To rise to 60 fps on the N64 you needed very basic graphics like those in F-Zero X, which was a game where sense of speed was needed, hence giving everything up for 60 fps.
     
    Last edited:
    Back
    Top