Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[SOLDIER First]

Walked into my grandmother's living room somewhere around midnight to find her sitting there on the couch.
Awake.
With the lights off.
When she usually goes to sleep at about nine.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I have come to the realization that I could and would legitimately think less of a person between the ages of 6 and 25 who knew about Pokemon and never liked it. I'm completely serious. That's a red flag.

[Descan]

Walked into my grandmother's living room somewhere around midnight to find her sitting there on the couch.
Awake.
With the lights off.
When she usually goes to sleep at about nine.

Did her head spin slowly around to face backwards?

[Graknorke]

Just watched a 16 second fight for the UFC Women's Bantamweight belt. Damn.

And what is the point where a fight ends, for context?

[Neonivek]

I have come to the realization that I could and would legitimately think less of a person between the ages of 6 and 25 who knew about Pokemon and never liked it. I'm completely serious. That's a red flag.

I can honestly see why people wouldn't like pokemon. The games usually are devoid of all but the most simple of stories with gameplay SO easy that you can literally play the game with no issue with the first 6 pokemon you catch.

And now if you haven't been following Pokémon for years you have to play basically with a guide open because pokemon typing often feels like the creators just took a cursory glance at the pokemon, saw one feature can entirely changed its type (DANG it Empoleon you do not justify your steel type... Neither do you Lucario but I assume you are meant to be Iron fist or something so it is a cultural thing. The worst is Flygon which is Dragon/Ground for no real reason except to give it 4x weakness to ice), some of the "what beats what" seems random at best and sometimes even contradictory. With moves that do not telegraph their use or type a lot of the time either such as "assurance"... and several hidden features that can often mean the difference between keeping and tossing a creature.

Also before you ask... I do like pokemon.

[alway]

I have come to the realization that I could and would legitimately think less of a person between the ages of 6 and 25 who knew about Pokemon and never liked it. I'm completely serious. That's a red flag.

I can honestly see why people wouldn't like pokemon. The games usually are devoid of all but the most simple of stories with gameplay SO easy that you can literally play the game with no issue with the first 6 pokemon you catch.

And now if you haven't been following Pokémon for years you have to play basically with a guide open because pokemon typing often feels like the creators just took a cursory glance at the pokemon, saw one feature can entirely changed its type (DANG it Empoleon you do not justify your steel type... Neither do you Lucario but I assume you are meant to be Iron fist or something so it is a cultural thing. The worst is Flygon which is Dragon/Ground for no real reason except to give it 4x weakness to ice), some of the "what beats what" seems random at best and sometimes even contradictory. With moves that do not telegraph their use or type a lot of the time either such as "assurance"... and several hidden features that can often mean the difference between keeping and tossing a creature.

Also before you ask... I do like pokemon.

The gameplay is just a matter of good UX design. Easy enough that anyone who can read is able to play it; but with enough depth below the surface to make it entertaining over a long time period; Shinies, IV, EV, breeding, moves, ect.

As for the type system, I think it may actually be meant to be somewhat inscrutable in some cases. It thus serves as a mastery mechanic on two levels while still being easy for kids to learn. The first level is the simple 'x beats y' stuff. Just looking at most 'mons will give you a good idea of their type... Except for when it doesn't. And therein lies the second level of mastery: learning the types of the individual critters, especially those which are outliers. Even a kid can grasp these mechanics and thus become better at the game, while still occasionally being thrown a curve-ball when a seemingly flying dragon is a ground type that eats your thunderbolts for breakfast.

The stories are very well designed: targeted directly at the entry-level demographic of kids who are just of the age that wandering around and raising a team of critters to fight baddies and become the best is extremely appealing. Pokemon stories can mostly be summarized as a juvenile power fantasy; which is perfect for the juvenile demographic they're aimed at. People older than that will roll their eyes at it, while occasionally giggling at some of the more contrived bits and absurdist humor. (Rarr, we're team aqua, come to rob this museum! ... Alright everyone, line up to pay the admission fee.)

Basically pokemon is a pretty decent party based RPG. And really, it's pretty much the best game series out there aimed at children just getting into video games. If you look at most of the other stuff aimed at that early a demographic, a vast majority is just shovelware, made with the idea that kids don't know better, and that some parents will buy it anyway. For example, when our parents finally broke down and got us a gameboy after much pleading, they figured they would get their money's worth and get some games for my little sisters as well. One was a horse game in which you steered through a course, and jumped hurdles with 'a.' And that's pretty much it. The other was a series of abysmally awful minigames which wouldn't even constitute a facebook game today.

[Neonivek]

while still occasionally being thrown a curve-ball when a seemingly flying dragon is a ground type that eats your thunderbolts for breakfast

No I never bought that. Most of the time it is just laziness on the side of the creators who didn't want to sacrifice the aesthetics of the pokemon. I haven't had the luxury of playing every single generation and usually, when I buy one, I pick the special ones that have multiple generations.

If it was one or two pokemon a generation... maybe I'd buy it... but at this point it is getting quite consistent that there is a good chance you outright won't know what a pokemon's typing is. You eventually get the pattern for it, but it is mostly by lowering yourself to their level "Ok, so this pokemon is clearly made of metal... It attacks using metallic sound... it must be a Psychic type. Why? Because it is a special attacker and that generation didn't have special attack specialty steel types" ... "Hmm now this pokemon has moss growing on it and is clearly earthy... it must be a normal type. Why? Because otherwise it would be a Ground Type which would make it weak to ice types. Hurray for story gameplay segregation!"

The stories are very well designed

They mostly serve as excuse plots. They are simple to the point of being completely unimportant with only the latest pokemon games starting to even attempt a real story.

Basically pokemon is a pretty decent party based RPG.

Look my point wasn't that Pokémon was bad... It is that Pokémon has more then enough in it to turn someone off. It is no where close to the goodness required to honestly question anybody's tastes for disliking it.

It is no where as intuitive as you give it credit alway...

[Yoink]

Spoiler: Long post (click to show/hide)

I have come to the realization that I could and would legitimately think less of a person between the ages of 6 and 25 who knew about Pokemon and never liked it. I'm completely serious. That's a red flag.

I can honestly see why people wouldn't like pokemon. The games usually are devoid of all but the most simple of stories with gameplay SO easy that you can literally play the game with no issue with the first 6 pokemon you catch.

And now if you haven't been following Pokémon for years you have to play basically with a guide open because pokemon typing often feels like the creators just took a cursory glance at the pokemon, saw one feature can entirely changed its type (DANG it Empoleon you do not justify your steel type... Neither do you Lucario but I assume you are meant to be Iron fist or something so it is a cultural thing. The worst is Flygon which is Dragon/Ground for no real reason except to give it 4x weakness to ice), some of the "what beats what" seems random at best and sometimes even contradictory. With moves that do not telegraph their use or type a lot of the time either such as "assurance"... and several hidden features that can often mean the difference between keeping and tossing a creature.

Also before you ask... I do like pokemon.

The gameplay is just a matter of good UX design. Easy enough that anyone who can read is able to play it; but with enough depth below the surface to make it entertaining over a long time period; Shinies, IV, EV, breeding, moves, ect.

As for the type system, I think it may actually be meant to be somewhat inscrutable in some cases. It thus serves as a mastery mechanic on two levels while still being easy for kids to learn. The first level is the simple 'x beats y' stuff. Just looking at most 'mons will give you a good idea of their type... Except for when it doesn't. And therein lies the second level of mastery: learning the types of the individual critters, especially those which are outliers. Even a kid can grasp these mechanics and thus become better at the game, while still occasionally being thrown a curve-ball when a seemingly flying dragon is a ground type that eats your thunderbolts for breakfast.

The stories are very well designed: targeted directly at the entry-level demographic of kids who are just of the age that wandering around and raising a team of critters to fight baddies and become the best is extremely appealing. Pokemon stories can mostly be summarized as a juvenile power fantasy; which is perfect for the juvenile demographic they're aimed at. People older than that will roll their eyes at it, while occasionally giggling at some of the more contrived bits and absurdist humor. (Rarr, we're team aqua, come to rob this museum! ... Alright everyone, line up to pay the admission fee.)

Basically pokemon is a pretty decent party based RPG. And really, it's pretty much the best game series out there aimed at children just getting into video games. If you look at most of the other stuff aimed at that early a demographic, a vast majority is just shovelware, made with the idea that kids don't know better, and that some parents will buy it anyway. For example, when our parents finally broke down and got us a gameboy after much pleading, they figured they would get their money's worth and get some games for my little sisters as well. One was a horse game in which you steered through a course, and jumped hurdles with 'a.' And that's pretty much it. The other was a series of abysmally awful minigames which wouldn't even constitute a facebook game today.

This is a very good post. I think you hit a lot of nails on their heads, there.

[Neonivek]

Ugh I dislike applause when I am in a argument with someone.

It is basically a cheer squad. >_<

Edit: Yeah I calmed down >_<

[Yoink]

I didn't intend to "cheer on an argument" or anything, in fact I hadn't even realised there was an 'argument' taking place.
Sorry if my post was misconstrued, I simply saw Alway's post and it seemed to be such a good summary of the Pokemon series that I felt compelled to comment on it. Again, didn't realise you were "in an argument"... especially since you'd already stated that you liked Pokemon yourself.

[hops]

I have never played a game that I don't have a reason to dislike.
In fact I usually dislike all games, which is sort of why I appear like I enjoy all games because they're all the same drivel to me. I tend to care about the storyline than gameplay.

[Yoink]

You know, I actually have to agree with that, sort of.
I've definitely never played a perfect game, anyway. By that I mean, a game with absolutely no features that I found annoying in some way, which worked well, which hooked me in for hours and didn't have at least one point where I think, "Well, that really sucks- they sure messed up an otherwise great game with [INSERT GRIPE HERE]."

That's not to say I don't greatly enjoy some games, not at all. It's just that I'm yet to play even a brilliant game without some problems. I guess it's kind of unlikely for such a thing to exist- as long as I'm having fun they're doing alright, I suppose.

[Neonivek]

I didn't intend to "cheer on an argument" or anything, in fact I hadn't even realised there was an 'argument' taking place.
Sorry if my post was misconstrued, I simply saw Alway's post and it seemed to be such a good summary of the Pokemon series that I felt compelled to comment on it. Again, didn't realise you were "in an argument"... especially since you'd already stated that you liked Pokemon yourself.

It was an over-reaction by me. It is something that is hard to deal with personally.

I tend to care about the storyline than gameplay.

You would be surprised how untrue that likely is. Though I mean more of "You would be surprised how much the gameplay affects the story".

While I could talk about artsy games that blend the two (like "The Void")... Good games often have the gameplay compliment or assist the story... usually by at least providing pacing.

[Sergarr]

Basically pokemon is a pretty decent party based RPG.

Wizardry 8 was better ;_;

[StupidElves]

Pokemon Mystery Dungeon is better than regular Pokemon.