Pokemon X and Y

[quote=ChaosxSoul]I think it's too early for gen6. It hasn't been even 2 full year since gen5 debut. Though I'm excited about how the game will look in 3d and hope that the new team goal won't be world domination. You can't beleive how pissed i was when that plot-twist happened in black and white. Also, this will propably be the first time in 10 years I will take the fire starter cause the other 2 look like retard. Plus, he isn't a fire/fighting. Wipee :)[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=Nighthawk] No, that's not it. There are a lot more clauses to prevent 'hax', and what isn't prevented either has a positive impact on the metagame, or isn't important/doesn't do anything.[/quote] Well no fucking shit Sherlock. The game has protection against hackers. It's not like the devs are completely fucking retarded. [quote]It already works at a satisfactory level, just like a lot of other games that have a lot of chance in them. The competitive Pokemon scene is almost perfectly balanced. That's more then you can say for oh I don't know...League of Legends, Dota, WoW, etc. Pokemon is able to appeal to the masses of kids and people with no competitive interest[/quote] Satisfactory is very much a matter of personal opinion. You cannot state that something is working satisfactory for anybody other than yourself. As such you cannot say that I will find it satisfactory. More counterplay does not in fact equal better balance. It just makes it harder to balance, even if balance problems are harder to notice. To make a complete statement on the overall game balance one would either require somebody who is really good at analysis or somebody who is at the top tier of play (those should be pretty decent at analysis too) and have been in other competitive games too. Something tells me you're neither.. [quote]Considering there are 650 possible Pokemon, I'd say that's quite an accomplishment, when a lot of other games (like LoL) struggle with balance when they have nowhere near that number. I was actually looking at some of the Pokemon, but as it turns out there are even less then 20 Pokemon that are completely unviable, more like 5-10.[/quote] This statement only further my doubts of your analytical ability. [quote]And what's so bad about a tier system? The tier system allows a lot more interesting and fun play, whereas if there weren't any, it would pretty much be a battle between the strongest teams over and over again, with no variety whatsoever. A bit like the LoL competitive scene, I find. Implementing a tier system was a great idea and opened up a lot of possibilities for play.[/quote] I don't know. I don't know enough to formulate a proper opinion on it. It is obvious however that if the game needs an invented, imaginary, if you will, system to even remotely balance things out then there's a serious problem with the vanilla balance. [quote]Really, while you may have some valid ideas, if you've never played competitive Pokemon before, you have no real knowledge about the subject, and should probably stfu, haha :P[/quote] One could make the logical statement that you have a good idea of how the game would translate into competitive play when you know a lot about the game mechanics. Now, Pokemon is an odd game that is modified to work properly in a competitive environment. Most games are not modified to balance multiplayer out, balance comes inherently. But what I've said may be too hard to understand for somebody who thinks Pokemon is "arguably the most strategic game in the world" then trying to correct it to "most strategic 'handheld' game in the world". Even the notion of calling a game "most strategic" is pretty damn silly. And yet again only furthers my doubts in your analytical ability.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi][quote=FalseoGod]@Sears Are you kidding me? Compared to previous water starters, that one looks like it caught neck cancer after being pummeled on the head by a frying pan. And I don't want Anal Sex brought up on every single thread, just on Off-Topic ones. [/quote] You're saying this when we had water starters like Oshawott and piplup?[/quote]

[quote=FalseoGod]Piplup was a lazy baby penguin drawing and Oshawott's only remarkable weirdness is that penis drawing on it's belly.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi]But those two were terrible, that's my point. Water types have had a bad streak for terrible designs since gen 4 on.[/quote]

[quote=ChaosxSoul][quote=Toshabi] But those two were terrible, that's my point. Water types have had a bad streak for terrible designs since gen 4 on. [/quote] It's still better then a pig dressed as a wrestling champ.[/quote]

[quote=Toshabi][quote=ChaosxSoul] [quote=Toshabi] But those two were terrible, that's my point. Water types have had a bad streak for terrible designs since gen 4 on. [/quote] It's still better then a pig dressed as a wrestling champ. [/quote] You did NOT just make fun of Strongham and Hogulese![/quote]

[quote=ChaosxSoul][quote=Toshabi] You did NOT just make fun of Strongham and Hogulese! [/quote] If your talking about tepig, the most useless starter, and it's evolutions, then yes.[/quote]

[quote=DillButt64]id rather have tepig than another snake pokemon but i picked the water type thing because i still think pigs are stupid[/quote]

[quote=FireLord][quote=DillButt64]id rather have tepig than another snake pokemon[/quote] even though pokemons are for kids ekans and arbok are really cool did you guys know this real fun fact? ekans = snake backwords arbok = cobra backwords wow, i just realised that backwords means backwords literally, because its "back words" like WORDS but from the BACK.[/quote]