Pokemon X and Y

[quote=MrCuddowls]Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with Canoes I expect someone to use this as a quote in their signature and am embracing the idea LOVE YOU ASS BUDDY CANOES[/quote]

[quote=Nighthawk]dayum i thought duffoas was good, but cuddoas is so much better.[/quote]

[quote=CasterMaster]Man and I [b]JUST[/b] bought a DSi XL this Christmas >.> can this get any worst...[/quote]

[quote=DillButt64]i dont know whats worse reading an argument between people saying pokemon is a kids game or not or a conversation about cudd taking it up the ass[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=GrandmasterD] [quote=Searz] Unless they completely revamp their game mechanics I'm never playing another Pokemon game. (which I'm pretty sure they never will) Pokemon has a lot of poisonous game mechanics for a strategy game.[/quote] I think most of their game mechanics are quite nice but the game is overall too easy and there is too much randomness in it.[/quote] Well that's one of the biggest problems right there. The EXTREME level of randomness. [quote=Nighthawk] that means I'll have to revamp all my competitive teams again, and the metagame will probably go to shit again...but w/e.[/quote] You're seriously playing competitive Pokemon?... The game is pretty much crap in a competitive environment. The level of randomness inherent in the game from the overall mechanics and the imbalance of the actual Pokemon makes it a very cheap experience. It's obvious that the game was never intended to be played on a competitive level. [quote=Nighthawk] Pokemon is arguably the most strategic game in the world[/quote] .... Dumbest thing I've heard this year.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=MrCuddowls] Oh forget it, I have nothing to hid, I admit it, 12 hours of every single day of my life ever since I was eleven years old have been anal sex with Canoes[/quote] [img=http://maymyatthu007.edublogs.org/files/2011/01/canoes-10diuum.jpg] (just making sure people know what he's talking about)[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=Nighthawk] Also, while there isn't an elo system, there is a ranking system in the GTS, which is competitive and built right into the game iirc. Oh and yes, Pokemon is without a doubt the most strategic game for a handheld, and the most competitive as well. Competitive pokemon has been going on since the early 2000's in NA, and much earlier before that in Japan. Hundreds of thousands of people are drawn to competitive Pokemon, more than any other handheld game in the world. Competitive Pokemon is also probably the second longest competitive game that's still going on, the other one being Magic, The Gathering, which has been around a little longer then Pokemon in NA.[/quote] It doesn't matter that it has a ranking system, that it has been around for very long nor that it has a big scene, the game is still shit in a competitive environment. The game mechanics are not built for a competitive environment. [quote=sirell] Pokemon Tournies exist, idiot. Not made to be competitive? You know nothing. They even have Pokemon bans, just like LoL.[/quote] While I agree with most things you said I must interject here. Pokemon does have systems in place that allow for competitive play. Does that make the game in any way good or competent at competitive play? No. The base game mechanics are clearly not built for competitive play and that makes the game a very cheap experience; a top level match can be decided by something as dumb as a 10% chance to miss. [quote=tehAsian] There's no ELO in pokemon because it isn't necessary. Yes everything in the game can be done by a 7 year old. Everything in LoL, which you claim is for mature audiences, can be done by a 7 year old too. I can tell my cousin to play LoL and he'll be able to use the shop, aim skillshots, point and click stuff, etc. He can do everything all of us can do. I guess that automatically makes LoL for kids. And you obviously haven't played the recent Pokemon games. Apparently a higher level difference between two battling pokemon will influence the experience given. And again, no strategy involved? Play a link battle against half competent players.[/quote] You're making even less sense than FireLord, dear. (i.e: not much at all) Leave the discussion for somebody who knows how to argue, like Sirell. (and try to learn something from him while you're at it)[/quote]

[quote=sirell][quote=Searz]Does that make the game in any way good or competent at competitive play? No. The base game mechanics are clearly not built for competitive play and that makes the game a very cheap experience; a top level match can be decided by something as dumb as a 10% chance to miss.[/quote] This is true, but not what I meant. When I said competitive, I mean only that Pokemon still has a competitive play-scene. The game itself may not be as complex as (say) LoL, or holds extremely elements of chance as opposed to skill, but it is still taken seriously. If I were to make a (somewhat inaccurate) comparison to LoL, it's like how it's not a simple matter of taking the most OP champion in the game and one-hitting everyone with a [[Darius]] dunk (I know he's not OP, but bear with me). Certain team compositions naturally counter others and the balance in your team needs to be taken into consideration. In the same way, Pokemon undergoes a lot of thought and theorycraft that aren't accessible to children (simply because they don't understand or don't bother to try the maths or theorycrafting). Even if it does sometimes come down to the 10% chance, it's still a serious competitive scene. Like how a Pro LoL player practices fights and theorycrafts to be a consistently good player, so too, does a Pokemon Pro player practice fights and theorycraft in order to be a consistently good player. Sure, the game might not have extensive factors such as positioning, objective secures and 5-man teamfights (the most is 3v3 in any one go), but it still has hefty considerations, like what move-sets to use, what natures the Pokemon have, what ability they have, stats, Pokemon synergies and team compositions. Whilst the game caters to children, keeping it simple enough so that a child could still win the game and do so-so in random link battles, there are certainly enough complex mechanics that are beyond the scope of a child in order to conclude that it is not aimed solely for children, especially when considered in the competitive scene. Perhaps this may be because Nintendo have expanded their audience since the first inception of Pokemon, but in truth the Japanese take their video games very seriously, and tend to cater to a wider range of audiences than one might expect. If I had to make another comparison for audience types, I could say it is like how the publishers of Harry Potter originally set the age-range to target 9-11, but became targeted at adults as well. Pokemon may have started out aimed at children, but it has definitely expanded since then. Maybe because a number of the adults nowadays spent part of their childhood playing Pokemon, I don't know. But my point regardless of all this is just that Pokemon is in no way restricted to children. It may have been in the past (though it isn't so in my opinion), but to say at this point that 'Pokemon is for kids' is far too narrow a point of view. So even if you disagree with the finer details in my previous statement, I don't really mind, seeing as the conclusion is maintained.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=sirell] [quote=Searz]Does that make the game in any way good or competent at competitive play? No. The base game mechanics are clearly not built for competitive play and that makes the game a very cheap experience; a top level match can be decided by something as dumb as a 10% chance to miss.[/quote]This is true, but not what I meant. When I said competitive, I mean only that Pokemon still has a competitive play-scene. The game itself may not be as complex as (say) LoL, or holds extremely elements of chance as opposed to skill, but it is still taken seriously.[/quote] We can agree on that then. [quote]If I were to make a (somewhat inaccurate) comparison to LoL, it's like how it's not a simple matter of taking the most OP champion in the game and one-hitting everyone with a [[Darius]] dunk (I know he's not OP, but bear with me). Certain team compositions naturally counter others and the balance in your team needs to be taken into consideration. In the same way, Pokemon undergoes a lot of thought and theorycraft that aren't accessible to children (simply because they don't understand or don't bother to try the maths or theorycrafting). Even if it does sometimes come down to the 10% chance, it's still a serious competitive scene. Like how a Pro LoL player practices fights and theorycrafts to be a consistently good player, so too, does a Pokemon Pro player practice fights and theorycraft in order to be a consistently good player.[/quote] Yes, this much is obvious. I'm not stupid you know :P [quote]Sure, the game might not have extensive factors such as positioning, objective secures and 5-man teamfights (the most is 3v3 in any one go), but it still has hefty considerations, like what move-sets to use, what natures the Pokemon have, what ability they have, stats, Pokemon synergies and team compositions.[/quote] Well, yes, but it is still not something I see as fit for competitive play. I'm talking out of knowledge of the game. I've read up on a lot of game mechanics and the more I read and the more I play the more convinced I am that it is not a good game for it. [quote]Whilst the game caters to children, keeping it simple enough so that a child could still win the game and do so-so in random link battles, there are certainly enough complex mechanics that are beyond the scope of a child in order to conclude that it is not aimed solely for children, especially when considered in the competitive scene. Perhaps this may be because Nintendo have expanded their audience since the first inception of Pokemon, but in truth the Japanese take their video games very seriously, and tend to cater to a wider range of audiences than one might expect. If I had to make another comparison for audience types, I could say it is like how the publishers of Harry Potter originally set the age-range to target 9-11, but became targeted at adults as well. Pokemon may have started out aimed at children, but it has definitely expanded since then. Maybe because a number of the adults nowadays spent part of their childhood playing Pokemon, I don't know. But my point regardless of all this is just that Pokemon is in no way restricted to children. It may have been in the past (though it isn't so in my opinion), but to say at this point that 'Pokemon is for kids' is far too narrow a point of view. So even if you disagree with the finer details in my previous statement, I don't really mind, seeing as the conclusion is maintained.[/quote] ... Why are you taking this discussion with me? This has nothing to do with our discussion >.> I did say that I agree with the majority of what you've said..[/quote]

[quote=FireLord]if you say a game made for children also for adultes because of one feature then the contrary must apply as well. a game made for adults is also made for children as long as there is one feature children can play. gta vice city, 18+ pegi rating, kids can drive around in an ambulance, therefore according to your logic it's made for children as well. no, just no.[/quote]