Pokemon X and Y

[quote=Toshabi]Who is this firelord guy? He's like Canoas if he were a major pot head.[/quote]

[quote=lifebaka][quote=Searz] What he meant to say is that: The target demographic for most Pokemon games is kids. Now, he went and said it in the clumsiest way imaginable and kept being unclear and clumsy with his statements, but that does not excuse the refusal to accept anything said by him. Not just him, but everybody started unnecessary tangents and mudslinging. You guys should all be ashamed of yourselves. [/quote] The main problem was that he seemed to be using "the target demographic for most Pokemon games is kids" as a proxy for "Pokemon games are bad," (or something similar) based on his dismissive tone. I think that a lot of people realized this, and tried to argue against it, but no one ever quite realized that they were arguing against the wrong thing. As for the alcohol thing, just remember that the term "drug" isn't a pejorative.[/quote]

[quote=Meiyjhe]^ True ^ Drugs don't have to be bad, doctors use them all the time :D[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=GrandmasterD] Wait, wait, what'd I do?[/quote] You know what you did. Don't deny it. [h1][b]I'VE GOT MY EYES ON YOU[/b][/h1] [img=http://screencrave.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Little-Fockers-Robert-De-Niro-Close-Up-25-10-10-kc.jpg] (seriously tho; it's directed at those partaking in the discussion on demographics and Pokemon)[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=lifebaka] The main problem was that he seemed to be using "the target demographic for most Pokemon games is kids" as a proxy for "Pokemon games are bad," (or something similar) based on his dismissive tone. I think that a lot of people realized this, and tried to argue against it, but no one ever quite realized that they were arguing against the wrong thing.[/quote] Well, more of a proxy for "adults playing games for children is stupid". Hence my statement; "he went and said it in the clumsiest way imaginable and kept being unclear and clumsy with his statements"[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=sirell] [quote=Searz]Why are you taking this discussion with me? This has nothing to do with our discussion >.>[/quote] It was to return to the original point of Pokemon not being restricted to kids. It doesn't do well to deviate on simple minor points we mostly agree on.[/quote] That may have been the point of your comment, but it was not what my interjection was about. Deviating into a separate discussion is fine, as long as the two are kept separate(which really isn't that hard..).[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=Nighthawk] [quote=Searz] 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] Not even close to the truth. In competitive Pokemon there is an extreme limit on the randomness that's even possible. There are many different clauses that prevent randomness or tone it down so it's not a problem. Sleep clause allows only 1 Pokemon to be asleep at a time, Freeze clause allows only 1 Pokemon to become frozen at a time, etc etc. Moves and abilities like Double Team are banned. Moves are banned, etc.[/quote] Is that it? It is not even close to enough. There's a TON of game mechanics in Pokemon that rely on chance. For it to work to a satisfactory level would require it to remove almost everything in the game that is based on chance. LoL has just ONE element of chance involved - crit - and I think that one should go too. Chance in competitive games is really fucking stupid. [quote]Also there are like zero imba pokemon in each tier (which I'm not sure if you really realize that there are tiers, you simply won't find an arceus versus a charizard), each pokemon has counters (generally a lot of them) and 90% of the time in Pokemon it's not even about who has the best 'pokemon' it's about who has the most skill in order to counter your opponents pokemon as well as who has the best prediction and who has the best synergy, plus what style of play they're using (eg offense doesn't generally do well against stall). Yes there are Pokemon that are stronger then others, but there are very very few pokemon that are truly unviable, in fact it does probably one of the best jobs of balancing ever, with over 600 pokemon to choose from you would think more then like, 20 of them would be completely unviable.[/quote] Right.. 20 unviable.. Not to mention the need for a tier system for it to work at all.. [quote]oh and before you give me shit for saying it's the most strategic game in the world, I meant most strategic 'handheld' game in the world. :P[/quote] Now you're just being stupid again. One might say there's a pattern emerging..[/quote]

[quote=DillButt64][quote=OTGBionicArm] I sense pokemon try-harding in this thread. [/quote] i dunno i assumed this thread would be more like "this is what i expect from this game" but it was more "GRRR POKEMON IZ BBY GAEM STFU" "NO U STFU POKEMON IS 4 EVRY1" its less pokemon try-harding and more argument try-harding but anyways i hope they add more things like the battle frontier and such cuz i liked having things to do after the elite four, and i hope they do more story stuff like they did in black and white with the elite four being interrupted[/quote]

[quote=Nighthawk][quote=Searz] Is that it? It is not even close to enough. There's a TON of game mechanics in Pokemon that rely on chance. For it to work to a satisfactory level would require it to remove almost everything in the game that is based on chance. Not to mention the need for a tier system for it to work at all.. [/quote] 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. 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 by putting out some cute pokemon that are complete shit (see: Luvdisc, Spinda, Pachirisu) or by putting out a pokemon that is cool (see: farfetch'd) or ties some storylines together (see: unown), while still being very competitive and balanced. 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. 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. 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]

[quote=FireLord][quote=Nighthawk]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] i know a bit about competitive pokemon, and i no that you either cheat or you need to spend years just finding and breeding the pokemons with good natures/ivs and training them with proper evs. most competitive play is online where you pick the pokemons, natures, moves, etc. and skip pretty much the whole game altogeter and only use the combat mechanics with many claus limitations.[/quote]