- All Generation I games have Super Game Boy enhanced features. In addition, whenever the Japanese Red, Green, and Blue or the America Red and Blue are played through the Game Boy Tower features in the Stadium games, all of these enhancements are present in the emulation. Odds are the colors on the sprites in question are taken from these enhanced features.
- Yellow does appear to maintain its Game Boy Color features when played in Game Boy Tower, but does use its Super Game Boy border. In addition, the Generation II games Gold and Silver (but not Crystal) also feature Super Game Boy enhancements, but contribute only its SGB borders to Game Boy Tower; Game Boy Tower appears to emulate the games as they would on a GBC as opposed to an SGB. (The reason Crystal doesn't have Super Game Boy enhancements is because it's a Type III game pak, and the Super Game Boy can only play Type I and Type II game paks, primarily due to being a counterpart to the original monochrome Game Boy.) --Shiningpikablu252 04:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
- 1 Gen I takes place at the same time as Gen III?
- 2 Color Generation Redirect?
- 3 Was this idea already taken?
- 4 Genosect/Mewtwo?
- 5 Battle music
- 6 The "Discussion of Generation I" section
- 7 Pokemon Yellow box
- 8 Title Screen?
- 9 Green Version Title Screen
- 10 The amount of moves/Pokémon
- 11 Kanto thematic motif
- 12 Caterpie.
- 13 Spin off games
Gen I takes place at the same time as Gen III?
Color Generation Redirect?
Would it be worth making a redirect page for Color Generation to this, seeing as many people know it as such? Similarily a 'Colour Generation' redirect for people like me who
spell it correctly use the British spelling. What about a redirect for the Metal Generation too? Advanced Generation already has a disambiguation page with one of the links leading to the Gen 3 article, so it would make sense for these two generations to have similar redirects. --Raylax 16:26, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Was this idea already taken?
Isn't Genosect also genetically engineered? --Arrogios 14:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
- Genesect is modified in some way, although it's unclear whether it's genetically engineered or just biomechanical. But how does this tie in with the article? A one-shot deal in Generation V is irrelevant to an underlying thematic motif from Generation I. --AndyPKMN 22:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
How many battle themes are in Gen I?
I counted five:
- Wild Pokémon
- Trainer Battle
- Gym Battle
- Vs. Lance
- Vs. Gary/Blue/Champion/whatever you call him
Correct me if I am wrong, but I guess these are the only. Marked +-+-+ 14:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
The "Discussion of Generation I" section
is opinionated, poorly-defended, and fairly out of touch with RBY. As such I think it needs a rewrite, though I have enough changes that I'd rather bring it up here than overhaul it all in one go.
When the games were first released, despite their inferior graphics and sound compared to other games of the time,
"...inferior graphics and sound..." is editorializing. I happen to prefer the first generation's graphics, though not it's music, but in any case it's not our place to enshrine opinion as fact.
Psychic-type Pokémon having virtually no match, due to their moves being resisted by no types other than itself, and their only weakness being Bug (that had only three damaging moves, Leech Life, Pin Missile and Twineedle). This made it easy for the player to catch a Drowzee relatively early into the game, evolve it and teach it the move Psychic, allowing it to easily defeat any opponent bar Sabrina.
Psychics do have a match: Normals. Both in-game and competitively there are as many good Normals as Psychics, and one could even make the same case for Waters.
The number of Bug moves isn't the problem, it's how they're distributed. No one would complain about Psychics if Tauros, Dodrio, Snorlax, and Rhydon all got Twineedle. Instead Beedrill does, which is as much to say that no viable Pokémon gets a Bug move.
Drowzee is an odd choice for the Psychic poster-child as Kadabra is simply better. Drowzee can beat Sabrina without too much hassle though with Headbutt (or Body Slam if you're willing to use the TM so). Defeating any opponent in the game isn't a high bar though, many Pokémon can do it.
Except for the Elite Four, there were no Trainers that could be rebattled, meaning that, barring winning expensive TMs at the Game Corner and selling them or using Pay Day many times, the amount of money that a player could earn before reaching Indigo Plateau was limited.
Point taken, but is this a balance issue? Or even an issue at all?
The Special stat working as both Special Attack and Special Defense meant that Pokémon with a high Special stat had a decisive edge in battle. An example is Venusaur, with a Special base stat of 100, using Grass-type (and therefore Special) moves, and being weak to mostly Special types (except for the Flying and Ground type).
I think I know what this paragraph means to say: that the combined Special stat makes RBY hinge too much on the Special side over the Physical side. It's arguable, though I'd disagree. This is an obscure way of phrasing it and an even obscurer way of arguing the case though. As is the argument is merely that it's good to have a high Special stat and some Pokémon wage battle mostly on this one side, which is a truism and says nothing about balance; you could argue the same for any Physical Pokémon.
The first generation of Pokémon games were more directed towards genetics and engineering. The three starters, Bulbasaur (dinosaur-plant hybrid), Charmander (salamander), and Squirtle (turtle), are all reptilian in nature, and take some elements from the dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are reptiles, and were one of the most successful groups of animals to exist. Bulbasaur, the most similar to dinosaurs of the three, is the first listed in the Pokédex. Other Pokémon in the generation continue this theme. Eevee is capable of evolving into multiple forms due to its unstable DNA; Voltorb...
Another workable thesis, but it's very weirdly defended. The reptile part doesn't connect at all to the genetics and engineering part.
Also the Trivia section is poorly-conceived, but I gather that's a well-known issue on Bulbapedia pages in general. I hope we can figure out a way to edit what seems like an interesting perspective on the first generation's place in Pokémon history into a more objective and more true-to-RBY form. Cheers! MaskedFalcon 23:48, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with everything you brought up. It really needs a complete rewrite.--Lynguist (talk) 17:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Pokemon Yellow box
Someone please fix the Pokemon Yellow title image. No file exists by the name of "Yellow Title.png" ZMT123 22:26, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The title screen on the page hasn't changed in at least a week. Isn't it supposed to change? JacobTheDoduo 02:10, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Green Version Title Screen
The Red, Blue, and Yellow title screens are in Super Game Boy colors while Green's is in black and white. JacobTheDoduo 22:05, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
The amount of moves/Pokémon
In the trivia it's stated that "Generation I is the only Generation that introduced more moves than it did Pokémon". Isn't this trivia wrong since Generation IV introduced 107 new Pokémon and 113 moves. I'm not sure if form differences count as different (sub)species on Bulbapedia so someone who knows the principles of this site can remove it if they think it's wrong. Ariano 07:11, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Kanto thematic motif
The section about the thematic motif must be revised. It is incoherent to the point of being unreadable. It also contains textual errors; e.g. dinosaurs are not reptiles. The writing style seems not to match the rest of Bulbapedia's either.--Lynguist (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Is it me, or it's the only Pokémon (besides Metapod) with which you can't solo G1? Struggle deals normal damage and therefore can't hit Ghost. Weedle has Poison Sting which would probably take lots of grinding, but wo uld be possible. Magikarp had few events that granted him extra moves (Dragon Rage and if you backtraded, Bubble). Ditto could Transform and thus attack them.- unsigned comment from Eridanus (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 July 2013 (UTC)