Talk:Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire

This talkpage is only for discussion of the article itself! As the subject of this article is recently released, information on the page may change rapidly. Please make absolutely sure that the information that you wish to add to the article is able to be confirmed independently by yourself or another Bulbapedia user or administrator. Please take any other discussion or questions regarding the subject of the article to the Bulbagarden Forums, where you can discuss it freely with other members of the Bulbagarden community. An admin can remove this template at his or her discretion.

Interwiki

Don't forget the interwikis! [[de:Pokémon Omega Rubin und Alpha Saphir]] [[fr:Pokémon Rubis Oméga et Saphir Alpha]] [[it:Pokémon Rubino Omega e Zaffiro Alpha]] Btw... why you are protect all pages, that are related in any form with the new remakes? Sorry for my bad english, I'm from Germany... Tobutz98 (talk) 19:17, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Pages related to any breaking news are generally protected to prevent wild speculation or misinformation from being added. I'm not sure if there's a specific place or way to request edits to locked pages, sadly. Yamiidenryuu (talk) 19:36, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The place to request edits for locked pages is on their talk page, or the talk page of a staff member. --It's Funktastic~!_{話してください} 19:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Add Template

I think it would be wise that one of the Admins put "Template:Upcoming notice" or a different template I could not find on this page because it is new unless I am wrong and this is not necessary because of the page protection. Dbeckelheimer6 (talk) 21:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit suggestions

• "are the secondary [[paired version]]s of [[Generation VI]]" implies that every subsequent generation has had "secondary paired versions" (a phrase that is being used to represent both remakes and sequels), which is incorrect. Why not just copy and customize the text from the intros of FireRed and LeafGreen and HeartGold and SoulSilver?
• "Both games were revealed during a worldwide announcement by the official Pokémon websites, on May 7, 2014. The paired versions will be released worldwide during November 2014."
• Change "[[Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire Versions|Pokémon Ruby and Pokémon Sapphire]]" to "{{game|Ruby and Sapphire|s}}" —TheVeryBest 05:29, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have made some changes as you have requested. —darklordtrom 07:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, trom. However, it says that November 2014 is the release date, but I think this should say release period. Also, "PAccording to the press release which announced the games" should be "According to the press release that announced the games". Some users seem to think that which can replace that in this instance because I see it often, but this is folly. For instance, the phrasing "The book, which I read last night, was exciting" must use which and not that, while "The book that I read last night was exciting" is the opposite (but may also omit that entirely). —TheVeryBest (UTC) 09:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Folly indeed. —darklordtrom 10:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Trailer Video

Can an admin add this to the page??

By pokemon

This video is not available on Bulbapedia; instead, you can watch the video on YouTube here.

--✓PikaTepig999✓ 08:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, although I dislike that template so I chose not to use it. —darklordtrom 10:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't mind me, but may I ask why you don't like that template ?? --✓PikaTepig999✓ 09:09, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Poké Transporter

If these games use the Poké Transporter, like X and Y, will it be worth noting that these are the first remakes to be compatible with the originals, if indirectly? Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire Versions → Pal Park → Generation IV → Poké Transfer → Generation V → Poké Transporter → Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire | This message brought to you by Glitchipedia, the falsified encyclopedia (talk) 14:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It is currently unknown if they will use the Poke Transporter. --✓PikaTepig999✓ 09:35, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't my question. I said if they do, will this be worth noting? This message brought to you by Glitchipedia, the falsified encyclopedia (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Even if they don't, they'll still be compatible with the originals via Poke Transporter to XY, then trade to ORAS. It's still speculative to say it yet, but as soon as either Poke Transporter or trade capability is revealed, I would think it'd be notable that they're the only ones (not just the first, since first is of debatable notability for some things). Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 17:20, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly worth noting in my opinion, but i also think that the admins should approve it. And @Pumpkinking, they are currently the only ones,but if in the future a remake of DP is announced, we'll have to change the wording. --✓PikaTepig999✓ 09:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Press Release Description

The second paragraph "According to the press release that announced the games, the new titles will to take players through a dramatic story within a spectacular new world." should be changed to reflect that this is not a new game as "spectacular new world" implies. The official website also gives a far more accurate description of the game http://www.pokemon.com/us/pokemon-video-games/pokemon-omega-ruby-and-pokemon-alpha-sapphire/ Luneth (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

So why don't we just delete the "new" in "a spectacular new world"? Snekradguy (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Modifying any quote typically makes the quote unusable. ^Maverick_Nate 16:59, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It isn't really a quote because the video never mentions "a spectacular new world". Only "an epic new adventure" and "a dramatic new world". Snekradguy (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a quote from the official press release. Kai * the Arc Toraph 19:26, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Can we at least put "an epic new adventure in a spectacular new world" in quotes? --KommanderAwesome (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Not the way in your comment since that would be combining two quotes together. The largest stretch I can see is, the games will take players on "an epic new adventure" to "a dramatic new world." Still, I believe the wording on the article is the best so far. --Super goku (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

New information from Serebii

we should include this info from todays news: http://www.serebii.net/index2.shtml

"Following its reveal yesterday, there has been some question as to the actual content of Pokémon Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire, as to whether they're remakes or new versions due to the wording of the announcement. During the Investor Briefing today, Satoru Iwata confirmed that Pokémon Omega Ruby & Pokémon Alpha Sapphire are full-remakes of the 2002 releases, Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire. We'll bring more on these games as it comes Edit @ 15:38: The Japanese arm of The Pokémon Company sent out an e-mail to all Daisuki Club members which ends up pointing out the differences to Groudon & Kyogre on the box-art, stating that they're showcasing "never before seen Pokémon", the same terminology they used for Black & White Kyurem, as well as Mega Mewtwo Y upon their reveal, indicating that they are more than stylised artwork of the Pokémon. We'll bring more on this as it comes"

Pearlgamez (talk) 20:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Serebii should not be used as a source. PattyMan 00:43, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally received that email and did not see any indication this was true. ^Maverick_Nate 01:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree serebii should not be used as a source. Speculation about the differences to Groudon & Kyogre seems to indicate they may be mega-evolutions of the originals, but as no official information about mega-evolutions in the remakes has been announced it can't be used in this article. ADCK (talk) 02:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I also agree. Serebii should not be used as a source, or else Pidgeot would be blue and Magikarp would be a Psychic-type. Espurr101 (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)Espurr101

Use of the word Remake

Should we really use the word "remake" quite yet?

I know from previous patterns, the naming of the games and all that points to remakes, but at this point in time they might just be sequels or new games entirely. They even mention a new world, and the guy who gives the idol mentions a new region, so this might not take place in Hoenn at all.

I'm really just playing devil's advocate here, but we should watch the wording on the article for now. Yamitora1 (talk) 06:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

You haven't followed the news, have you? They were confirmed to be remakes yesterday. You should do your "homework" more often before you're posting questions.--電禅Den Zen 07:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been following the news since it broke, but every tweet and article just repackaged/re-tweeted the same info. 99% of every article I found on the subject of the remakes just quoted the blurb from the trailer. That article you linked to was the first OFFICIAL piece of news I've seen that gave details on the remakes. You can't expect to do biology homework if all the school has are math books.Yamitora1 (talk) 11:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

On the second thought, I was too harsh for you. Unlike what I thought, the link to the official statement has not been posted to almost any fan or official site; everyone just believes what Serebii says. Sorry about that.--電禅Den Zen 13:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Its ok, like Dawn always says, No Need To Worry. Yamitora1 (talk) 20:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

'Oras' is the Lithuanian word for 'Weather'

The name of the games is likely a play on the letters theme started with XY (ie. the Greek letters 'Α' and 'Ω'), and the Lithuanian word for weather, Oras -- weather being one of the prominent elements of RSE. Sounds like a interesting fact to add to the Trivia section. --Ash Pokemaster (talk) 13:07, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

It could also be a reference to the phrase "I am the Alpha and the Omega" in the Book of Revelation. Usually the phrase refers to Christ or God and typically is taken as meaning "I am the Beginning and the End". Possibly a hint that the story could involve Pokemon gods in some way. Interesting to note that Arceus is the 'Alpha' Pokemon according to the Pokedex and is the closest thing to a Pokemon 'God' we've seen as it was supposedly the creator of the Pokemon world. Perhaps we might see the 'Omega' Pokemon, or in other words, the 'End' or destroyer. (Basically the Pokemon Satan) - PsychoP (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't know what's going to happen in the games and this isn't the place for speculation. And no. That would require them making an actual new Pokemon, which won't happen in a remake. Ataro (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

We already have an alpha Pokemon, Arceus, and Giratina is based of the devil. Although, X and Y did kind of have the alpha and omega thing going, as Xerneas is the life Pokemon and Yveltal is the destruction Pokemon. Maybe Groudon and Kyogre will get alpha an omega forms. Idk, better wait for CoroCoro. - unsigned comment from Espurr101 (talk • contribs)

I think Bob Ross said it best, and what we have on our hands here is "a little happy mistake." It's just pure coincidence I am sure. Also Delta Emerald has been registered, and if they broke the mold and released that, it would be ORASDE which means nothing at all. Yamitora1 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No evident that Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire are in the Generation VI

We should at least wait for the announcement of cross-game communication of Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire to be sure if they are indeed Generation VI. And according to this:

"A generation, in terms of the Pokémon franchise, is a subset of the series that debuted or is set around the same time, focusing on the same region, and featuring the same Pokémon."

I don't think they are Generation VI at all if we go by this definition. We should probably change that. Besides, Generations may be separated by their methods of inter-game communications. I don't think, currently, there is anything we can say about battling or sending Pokemon from or to these games from or to X and Y.

Originally posted in Talk:Generation by Iosue (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2014 (UTC). Moved here by Iosue (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's totally safe to assume that Hoenn remakes aren't introducing a new generation, especially when there are lots of unreleased Gen VI stuff and the XY anime series isn't even in the halfway.--電禅Den Zen 10:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It is safe, but an encyclopaedia is obligated to only display information that is evidental. I won't have a problem if we put up "probably" or "highly speculated" instead of "part of". -Iosue (talk) 12:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

It's obviously generation VI. That is a guaranteed fact. Sure, it hasn't been stated, but it doesn't need to be stated. Generation VI is the current generation. Each generation starts with a brand new game in a brand new region with brand new Pokémon. It won't start with a remake. It's only logical that this is a Generation VI game. Also, it's being released on the same generation console as other Gen VI games which further backs up this point. It's Gen VI and although it hasn't been stated, there is enough evidence to make that claim. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 12:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

That way, we will have to refine our definitions of a generation. -Iosue (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

In my honest opinion (although everyones views are different as I can see on here lol) but until Nintendo/GameFreak/Pokemon says it's NOT part of Generation VI, it should be considered Generation VI games until further notice, and also, a lot of clues and hints in Pokemon X and Y further hinted that Pokemon Ruby & Sapphire would be remade, so it makes sense (to me anyways), but also Generation VI is not completed yet (that we know of) as we have seen in all other generations that either a 3rd game (Yellow, Crystal, Emerald, Platinum) or in the case of Generation V (Black 2 and White 2) were released to complete a Generation. And just like Generation III we had Ruby & Sapphire release first followed by FireRed & LeafGreen then Emerald, then in Generation IV we had Diamond, Pearl, Platinum then followed by HeartGold & SoulSilver. So far it seems that Generation VI is following the pattern of Generation III (so far, that is). But mind you, thats just my opinion, but like I said at the start of my "rant" (lol) until Nintendo/GameFreak/Pokemon says it's NOT part of Generation VI, it should still be considered Generation VI until further notice. Demers-Vachon 10:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They never start a generation with remakes. They only start a generation with a new region full of new Pokémon. Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire would more likely focus on the Generation III Pokémon than to introduce new ones. In FireRed and LeafGreen, you only met the original 150 Pokémon before getting the National Pokédex to catch Johto Pokémon and trade with Hoenn for the then-current Pokémon. FireRed LeafGreen didn't introduce any new Pokémon. They only brought back the classic Pokémon. HeartGold and SoulSilver did tweak the Johto Pokédex a bit to include five Gen IV evolutions that resulted from moves (although, I don't get why they didn't just put a move tutor in Kanto.) So HeartGold and SoulSilver didn't introduce any Pokémon. And X and Y had just came out last October. That was only 7 months ago, so if Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire started Generation VII, Gen 6 would be the shortest generation ever. The possibility of Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire starting a new generation is slim. SeanWheeler (talk) 11:16, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that these should be considered Generation VI, at least until we discover otherwise. While it is possible that we may get a new generation, the odds are incredibly small. Additionally, Pokémon tends to keep all of its media together. Even if X and Y are the only video games in Generation VI, I find it unlikely that Nintendo would push for a Generation VII when Ash Ketchum still has to finish his journey through Kalos in the anime, the Pokémon Adventures X and Y chapter is just getting started, and not even all Generation VI Pokémon have been made available as TCG cards. Heck, we still have yet to see the release of Diancie, Volcanion, and Hoopa in the video games, so even the video games cannot be finished here. Finally, I must correct you on something, SeanWheeler. FireRed and LeafGreen did actually introduce a new Pokémon: Deoxys. There were no events for it prior to the release of FRLG and when the events occurred, it could only be obtained in FRLG, not in Ruby and Sapphire. --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, please remind me if "Generations" are the official creations or simply how it is defined in the fandom? I think we should judge if certain titles are in a certain generation according to an objective definition. I understand that it is highly probable to see it released as in the Generation VI. But this is not a confirmed fact or official announcement, but a derived theory. -Iosue (talk) 22:52, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

The term generation has been used by official sources, such as Pokemon.com and the boxes of DP. Several traits that typically signify a new generation are not present, like no new region and no new Pokémon. Frankly, I think this whole argument is pointless. It's obvious that it's going to be released within this generation and at this rate we'll only keep going around in circles. It's really not worth continuing. --Pokemaster97 23:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that then. I thought Generations were something we created to group the titles. -Iosue (talk) 07:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with what "Pokemaster" had said earlier, this topic is just going around in circles until the games are released in November. I do firmly believe that Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire is part of Generation VI. If those games were to begin Generation VII, then I highly doubt they would have had Ash in Kalos, or if they did, he would have gotten 6 to 7 gym badges by now (more in reference to the Japan episodes that has aired already not the English ones) and from what I have seen, he so far only has one gym badge obtained and caught 2 pokemon (Froakie & Fletchling). But thats just my thoughts about it. Demers-Vachon 08:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's possible they will add more pokemon, but only gen VI ones, I doubt they'll touch the original gens ones... However, that being said and all, they've just started using Mega evolutions, I doubt they will drop them, so we may see many new mega evolutions instead of new pokemon. ADCK (talk) 01:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It is going in circles and no conclusion can be drawn. This is precisely what I wanted to say: We don't have official confirmation on which Generation this is in. On the page, there is this row: part of Generation VI. It looks like some official words. No matter how logical the derivations are, they are just speculations. There is not any canonical material or announcement making this claim. I have not been questioning its correctness. I have been questioning its validity. -Iosue (talk) 03:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

While there is no concrete 100% proof that it is Generation VI, there is no concrete 100% proof that it is Generation VII either. It could be either one. So the article should use whichever is more likely, which is Generation VI. You may think that we shouldn't make assumptions like that, but you have to remember that Nintendo never said that X and Y were a part of Generation VI. Or any of the other games were part of their respective Generations. So we will never have any official proof, because the very idea of generations is unofficial. (The boxes of Diamond/Pearl did say "A new generation", but that's just marketing crap. It could have just as easily said "a new adventure". And either way, "a new generation" doesn't necessarily mean Generation IV. For all we know, Nintendo classified every game before DP as a single generation, and every game since then is Generation II). This being the case, even when the games come out, it's likely that we won't know what generation to put. It's entirely fan-made. So, we do the logical thing of putting what most fans would classify this as. And in that regard, there's no reason why we can't put Generation VI now. Of course, when the games come out, if we see that there is enough separating it from X and Y, such as incompatibility, new Pokémon, a new region (technically the "Hoenn Confirmed!" meme is wrong - Hoenn has not been confirmed), etc., then fans may choose to reclassify it as Generation VII. If that's the case, we can edit the article at the time to reflect the shift in the fans's views. --GoldenSandslash15 (talk) 03:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I was not questioning if there is any probability of it coming out as Generation VII. I was questioning, even if it is very probable to be Generation VI, the validity is that it is deduced or speculated, even based on many objective observations. But none of the quoted are as valid as an official release. If "Generation" is The Pokemon Company's official terms, we cannot say something is or is not without the company first says so. If, instead, "Generation" is what the fandom creates, "official" means the stance de facto in the fandom, hence, verifiable and objective criteria and definitions. -Iosue (talk) 05:30, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

We don't need them to flat out state they are part of Generation VI. They only use the word Generation when a new one starts, and it's always when a new region is introduced and new Pokémon (not new forms) are introduced. Suggesting that they are part of a completely different Generation is ridiculous. There is only one Generation at a time. --HoennMaster 06:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Please, read again. I have not suggested they are part of a completely different Generation. I have not suggested any possibility. I only questioned the validity. -Iosue (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing is being changed, and this discussion is closed. - Kogoro - Talk to me - 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mega Evolutions

I know we can't state this to be a confirmed fact, but comparing Groudon and Kyogre here to their usual appearance seems to indicate they're in a different form. Perhaps it's a mega evolution? Draceon (talk) 00:25, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Talk pages are for the improvement of the article, not for idle discussion of the article's topic. Use the forums if you're interested in speculating about potential Mega Evolutions for the new games. Pumpkinking0192 (talk) 01:06, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I was unsure as to whether that should be taken note of on this page, given its visibility on the box art, but seeign as it's unconfirmed I will take my leave to the forums. Draceon (talk) 04:47, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

English official site

This should be added as an official site in the infobox as it is on the other games: Pokémon.com --Abcboy (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

PEGI rating

Shouldn't the PEGI rating be 7, as it shows in this video? Snekradguy (talk) 15:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Right underneath that it says Provisional, which means it could change. --HoennMaster 17:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm from the Netherlands, so I didn't know what it meant, I thought it was just some kind of company name or something like that. Snekradguy (talk) 20:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Delta Emerald

So apparently Delta Emerald has been registered. Is this worth noting on the article? Yamitora1 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There's been countless trademarks like this before and they've not been mentioned (Such as Water Blue) so it doesn't seem necessary. ----samm :D 19:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Even though Game Freak/Nintendo may or may not use the "Delta Emerald" trademark, I think it warrants some sort of mention (a single sentence would suffice, and there are other sources/websites covering it as well), primarily due to the term apparently being registered around the same time as "OmegaRuby/AlphaSapphire" (and it is the only trademark that is a feasible parallel to the OmegaRuby/AlphaSapphire names with the "Greek letter + precious gemstone" construct). I personally think WaterBlue merits a similar mention -- due to its same-time registration with FireRed/LeafGreen (and being the closest parallel to those terms with the "element + color" construct) and the matter that Game Freak actually addressed the "LeafGreen title retaining" issue at one point. Fenyx4 (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My only concern with this is was any Crystal remake title trade marked with HGSS? We know Gray was trade marked before B2W2Yamitora1 (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Coro Coro leak

The Coro Coro leak is out with new information. Swampert and Sceptile has Mega Evolutions. Brendan and May are confirmed. Teams Aqua and Magma were shown. Steven apparently has a Mega Charizard X. When are we going to update this article? SeanWheeler (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No content regarding the CoroCoro leaks are going to be added until it can be known they aren't fake. --NOBODY (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So how are leaks proven real? It may be easy to detect ridiculous leaks but what about leaks as convincing as this that everyone's talking about? Other fansites like Serebii believe it. But how do we know when a leak is real? SeanWheeler (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

When the issue is published, we will know it's real. That's fairly obvious. ☆The Solar Dragon☆ 22:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Don't forget, Diancie is getting a mega too. --SuperPikaBros 23:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the first Mega Evolution of a Kalos Pokémon. When is the issue actually coming out? SeanWheeler (talk) 23:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

The 13th. Ataro (talk) 23:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

If True, this also would make Diancie the only Pokémon so far to have a Mega form that isn't in Gens I-IV. Gen V still has no Megas as of yet.Yamitora1 (talk) 23:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

So what is a faster way to determine it's authenticity? I don't want to wait 6 days. I want the information here now! SeanWheeler (talk) 00:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Being impatient isn't going to make it come faster. You have to wait, that is life.--ForceFire 03:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, looks like the images have been posted on the Archives and my article was published on Bulbanews. It now looks as if Bulbagarden has accepted the leak as official. Question is, is Bulbapedia? SeanWheeler (talk) 14:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)