Analyzing the Nostalgia Effect

[Falconv1.0]

Hidden stats that affect outside factors can be good for a game, like for random stuff, thus creating new scenarios for replay value. Hidden stats that are constant and are a must to know are ****ing ridiculous, the fact that such a thing was never fixed bugs the hell out of me.

 

[Luco]

Hidden stats that affect outside factors can be good for a game, like for random stuff, thus creating new scenarios for replay value. Hidden stats that are constant and are a must to know are ****ing ridiculous, the fact that such a thing was never fixed bugs the hell out of me.

Well the game i'm thinking of doesn't have replays and the hidden values are constant and pretty need-to-know. All of the stuff that the players know, they've found out for themselves and gotten info from the *small* community.

And Finalark you probs wouldn't know the game. It's called Oberin.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

Never did understand why EV's are hidden. I also hate the journey of getting them. I understand the idea of "training" your Pokemon, I get it, but shouldn't the process be, y'know... fun? It makes me just want to skip everything and already have the Pokemon I want with the stats the way I like.

 

[Teran]

I think you should choose which stats to allow EVs into, that way you won't have to worry about OH **** KILLED A RATICATE BY ACCIDENT ALL MY WORK DOWN THE DRAIN.

 

[Holder of the Heel]

That's probably the best way to go about it. Then I can just worry about getting the right nature, abilitiy, moves, and level. If not that, then it needs to be something outside of battling that can be done at any time, so there is no "irreversible" possibility.

 

[Teran]

Too bad it just pigeonholes you into using PokéSAV

 

[ndayday]

But there's always the EV reducing berries. Also while completely stupid you can make it go a lot faster with PKRS and items.

I find it's easier to lose count than mess up actually, but then you can just run your Pokemon through Pokecheck. Which is of course still a lot of work to get a good Pokemon.

 

[Teran]

Yeah but you have to grow the EV reducing berries, which is a grind in and of itself.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Well the game i'm thinking of doesn't have replays and the hidden values are constant and pretty need-to-know. All of the stuff that the players know, they've found out for themselves and gotten info from the *small* community.

That is awful game design. No one should make a game like that.

 

[Teran]

See at least in the old days when you had these hidden value things, you had official guides and instruction manuals that would point out these things.

Now it's just like "nah don't need a manual or a guide, we'll just make a ****ty tutorial segment". Unfortunately, they decide to leave important secret information out. I mean yeah I figured out a bunch of things from mere observation, but personally I'd rather just know what I'm doing. I like discovering areas or hidden PLOT related stuff, but not crucial mechanics kthx.

 

[Luco]

That is awful game design. No one should make a game like that.

Well it is very arguable. But it has an interesting result. While it's annoying when you start the game not to even know that it takes 100 successes to get to the next level, what it has done is strengthened the community to the point where if you play frequently you'll know every single other frequent player and what they are like. It's a very small community and the hidden game mechanics work to pull us all together and to ensure no one can just go out and single-handedly solo a Dragon or Lich.

I play this game very often and I like it a lot.

 

[Falconv1.0]

Well it is very arguable.

You say this and then you're only argument is this stupid arbitrary **** about how it keeps a small community together. You know a good game has good mechanics, not mechanics that force you to meet new people to learn stupid **** that should just be explained to you. It is not debatable. Period.

When you talk about game mechanics, you talk about the ****ing mechanics not about some outside bull**** relating to the community that literally no one cares about when it comes to discussing good design. You know some people actually like extra stupid bull**** in fighting games that do nothing but make them harder to play? Do you know that the fact that they like it doesn't make it any less stupid?

God, this ****ing place sometimes.

 

[Luco]

You say this and then you're only argument is this stupid arbitrary **** about how it keeps a small community together. You know a good game has good mechanics, not mechanics that force you to meet new people to learn stupid **** that should just be explained to you. It is not debatable. Period.

When you talk about game mechanics, you talk about the ****ing mechanics not about some outside bull**** relating to the community that literally no one cares about when it comes to discussing good design. You know some people actually like extra stupid bull**** in fighting games that do nothing but make them harder to play? Do you know that the fact that they like it doesn't make it any less stupid?

God, this ****ing place sometimes.

Please calm down. I am trying to offer discussion in a friendly manner and if I get off the track, then that is a mistake on my behalf. Still, writing an argument and making half of it a flame attack are two very different things.

You want game mechanic talk? Okay, it is true enough that the level system is excruciatingly difficult and that game mechanics had to be figured out completely by the players. However, it's not so small a community as you think that doesn't mind games set out in such a way. Besides, games today are becoming easier and easier and more revealing as they appeal to a more casual crowd. The challenge can come from just revealing out the game mechanics as you go, as this game is, rather than telling it all at the beginning, all the info that is apparently a 'must know'. I do not believe this is true because I know of people who have forged on without that knowledge and it's surprising the amount of people that will do that if they like other aspects of the game.

I feel like i've gotten off track again... I do that too often.

 

[Falconv1.0]

It's funny cuz he refuted nothing I said. Not even a tiny bit.

Something something community something something arbitrary difficulty does nothing for your case when you could just, oh idunno, make the game actually challenging without the need for hiding **** stupidly, which you still have not actually made a case against.

But it's ok because at least you're not the guy who says he doesn't give a **** how bad a game's GAMEPLAY is, so don't feel too sad!

 

[Luco]

It's funny cuz he refuted nothing I said. Not even a tiny bit.

Something something community something something arbitrary difficulty does nothing for your case when you could just, oh idunno, make the game actually challenging without the need for hiding **** stupidly, which you still have not actually made a case against.

But it's ok because at least you're not the guy who says he doesn't give a **** how bad a game's GAMEPLAY is, so don't feel too sad!

Well some of the best video-games barely reveal anything in terms of game mechanics. Games such as 'another world', 'Chrono Trigger', 'Terranigma'... Even games like Torchlight and Diablo gave you absolutely nothing to work with when it comes to, say, transmutation and the like.

Look, not all games are made this way, true enough. I'm not saying that a game has to be made with hidden values, i'm just saying it's not necessarily as bad as some people make it out to be, from playing those games.

And then yeah, neither way will work for everyone.

 

[Delta-cod]

What? Terranigma revealed anything that was necessary to play the game, and it even had a movement/attack explanation in the box. I don't know if it directly explained all the stats it gave you, but they were all self explanatory anyways. Level up system was standard as well. All you had to do was kill stuff to level up, which automatically raised a fixed amount of stats by a fixed amount. Weapon abilities were typically explained well, although there were certain effects that were kind of ambiguously described.

Like, Terranigma didn't explain much because it didn't really have to. There wasn't anything hidden from the player apart from sidequests, which is normal.

 

[Luco]

What? Terranigma revealed anything that was necessary to play the game, and it even had a movement/attack explanation in the box. I don't know if it directly explained all the stats it gave you, but they were all self explanatory anyways. Level up system was standard as well. All you had to do was kill stuff to level up, which automatically raised a fixed amount of stats by a fixed amount. Weapon abilities were typically explained well, although there were certain effects that were kind of ambiguously described.

Like, Terranigma didn't explain much because it didn't really have to. There wasn't anything hidden from the player apart from sidequests, which is normal.

It did but it didn't explain the movement/attack buttons very well. All it did was give you the name of the move and what it did. It often took me ages to find out the actual button combination/single button to use to do any single move. you can't imagine how late it was in that game before I began to block....

Btw, it's awesome to see somebody else in this forum who has played terranigma. I love that game so much. :3

 

[Falconv1.0]

Well some of the best video-games barely reveal anything in terms of game mechanics. Games such as 'another world', 'Chrono Trigger', 'Terranigma'... Even games like Torchlight and Diablo gave you absolutely nothing to work with when it comes to, say, transmutation and the like.

Look, not all games are made this way, true enough. I'm not saying that a game has to be made with hidden values, i'm just saying it's not necessarily as bad as some people make it out to be, from playing those games.

And then yeah, neither way will work for everyone.

A game being good with **** design elements does not make those ****ty design elements good. I like Silent Hill 2, I like it a lot but I curse my head off at people who defend the garbage combat in that game because I have a brain and it makes me have thoughts.

Diablo 1 and 2 general is really good at making the experience harder than it really is, which is kinda bad. The fact of the matter is that some things are good in spite of shortcomings, **** like Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo having hard ****in inputs, Melee having l canceling instead of just giving the characters half the lag they have right now from aerials, etc.

Stop defending ev's, it's stupid.

 

[Dre89]

Wow man you're really...'passionate' about video games. It's not really something worth getting worked up about.

Sometimes hidden mechanics are good because learning the mechanics kills the magic of the game. Understanding the mechanics of RBY killed most of the magic and epicness it had for me, to the point now where I have to play nuzlockes to get any sense of epicness back.

 

[SubparSmashBrother]

EV's were meant as a way to further individualize pokemon and make sure trained pokemon are stronger than wild ones. They weren't meant for anything competitive I imagine, since when they were introduced the wifi community didn't exist and the competitive community was very small.

I agree they're stupid if you want to play competitively and have to grind specific stats, but having randomly distributed EVs is fine for in-game and friendly fighting with friends, which is what the game is made for.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I agree they're stupid if you want to play competitively and have to grind specific stats, but having randomly distributed EVs is fine for in-game and friendly fighting with friends, which is what the game is made for.

It's too bad that they didn't actually do that because next to no casual players are even aware of the stat differences due to never being told about them in game.

@Dre: I plan on being a video game designer, so yeah maybe a little bit, but I'm not actually worked up. That being said, I like how apparently I'm not supposed give a **** about people defending ridiculously stupid design in video games on a ****in' video game forum. Nah man, too weeeiiirrd.

Explain to me what was so hidden that made the game "magical to you", because that might be the most confusing response I've been given on this kind of subject. It's ok to hide information for no reason because something something magic? Also I hope you realize there is a difference between a game never teaching you something and teaching you gradually. The former is ******** when it's a hidden ****ing stat that does not but **** up the competitive scene while making absolutely next to no one care on the casual side and the second idea is what we call actually good design.

What I find extra hilarious is how the main topic here is EV's, not the broad concept of hidden stats, even though not a single ****ing one of you who played the game on single player casually was ever even somewhat aware of their influence.

 

[Teran]

Wow man you're really...'passionate' about video games. It's not really something worth getting worked up about.

Being passionate about laziness and mediocrity in products released to the public is certainly justifiable. Good media has the potential to really educate and enrich people's minds, but with mediocrity and nonsense being drummed into people's minds, we get farcical ideas such as forced grinding to achieve a usable character in a multiplayer game.

Sometimes hidden mechanics are good because learning the mechanics kills the magic of the game. Understanding the mechanics of RBY killed most of the magic and epicness it had for me, to the point now where I have to play nuzlockes to get any sense of epicness back.

Really? I picked up on basically all the mechanics as a 9 year old and none of the magic was lost on me. 1st gen's magic didn't come from not knowing about STAB and Stat Exp. etc (I did anyway), it came from it being a mindblowing new concept, fantastic sound design, accessible yet infinitely rewarding gameplay, and great character design. Yes, character design, there wasn't that much dialogue, but we all remember many of the trainer lines because of their quirky and memorable nature.

"I like shorts! They're comfy and easy to wear!"

Honestly, nobody EVER found RBY remotely challenging in the main story. If you ever did, even as a child, you were just frightfully bad at videogames. I mean come on, we'd just come off of **** like 2D Mario and Final Fantasy and now Pokémon is difficult?

 

[Dre89]

Being passionate about laziness and mediocrity in products released to the public is certainly justifiable. Good media has the potential to really educate and enrich people's minds, but with mediocrity and nonsense being drummed into people's minds, we get farcical ideas such as forced grinding to achieve a usable character in a multiplayer game.

But he doesn't need to be so rude about it. It's not as if we're talking about serious issues like the death penalty or immigrant boats, it's just video games.

Really? I picked up on basically all the mechanics as a 9 year old and none of the magic was lost on me. 1st gen's magic didn't come from not knowing about STAB and Stat Exp. etc (I did anyway), it came from it being a mindblowing new concept, fantastic sound design, accessible yet infinitely rewarding gameplay, and great character design. Yes, character design, there wasn't that much dialogue, but we all remember many of the trainer lines because of their quirky and memorable nature.

"I like shorts! They're comfy and easy to wear!"

Honestly, nobody EVER found RBY remotely challenging in the main story. If you ever did, even as a child, you were just frightfully bad at videogames. I mean come on, we'd just come off of **** like 2D Mario and Final Fantasy and now Pokémon is difficult?

It lost a lot of epicness to me when I realised things like that charizard isn't as epic as his appearance suggests and has weaker attack than seaking, that nidoking has weaker attack than sandslash etc. Also that it's more efficient to solo the game with one pokemon rather than build a balanced team of six. However I did like finding out about the personalised crit rates and how IVs and EVs made every pokemon unique.

Just in general not being intimidated by anything or finding anything epic anymore. The game is only epic or challenging if do you a nuzlocke that limits your ability to level your pokemon (I allow only two visits per pokecentre, I honestly don't see how a nuzlocke is challenging without a pokecentre limit).

 

[Falconv1.0]

But he doesn't need to be so rude about it. It's not as if we're talking about serious issues like the death penalty or immigrant boats, it's just video games.

You don't need to be rude or nice or anything ever actually, but thing is, I actually care just a tiny bit when it comes to people defending stupid **** in media because it happens a lot. I've been told I should be ok with not being able to manually crouch in a shooter, that Mass Effect somehow isn't broken as **** gameplay wise, that the mechanics of a game (you know, the ****ing gameplay) don't matter, that overly complicated inputs in fighters are ok, etc., and the thing is, this seems to be fairly accepted. I'm allowed to seem a little impatient with people's inability to actually defend their opinions.


Also your follow up on how not knowing the mechanics made the game more special made me lol. Thing is though, you can find all those stats...in game....so it has absolutely ****ing nothing to do with actually hiding mechanics or some other pointless bull**** like what Luco was defending. Cuz see, those stats, you know, the things that tell you Charizard isn't that good...it's right there in the little stats menu in game. You know, the opposite of hidden.

So this little statement:

Sometimes hidden mechanics are good because learning the mechanics kills the magic of the game.

Pretty much objectively sucks ***.

I'd say nice try anyway but then I'd be speaking disingenuously.

 

[Dre89]

You don't need to be rude or nice or anything ever actually, but thing is, I actually care just a tiny bit when it comes to people defending stupid **** in media because it happens a lot. I've been told I should be ok with not being able to manually crouch in a shooter, that Mass Effect somehow isn't broken as **** gameplay wise, that the mechanics of a game (you know, the ****ing gameplay) don't matter, that overly complicated inputs in fighters are ok, etc., and the thing is, this seems to be fairly accepted. I'm allowed to seem a little impatient with people's inability to actually defend their opinions.

Being rude/aggressive doesn't equal caring more, it just means you have less composure. I did game design for a bit and the people who got worked up like you do about games were the ones that everyone else hated. Everyone who behaves innaproprietly and is disliked for the way they conduct themselves in discussions like these tries to justify it through other people's ignorance. It's not that you're more intelligent and that their ignorance is less apparent to other people, you're just more irrational and less composed.

I guarantee you that given what I study and the environments I've been in, that I've dealt with more perceived ignorance than you have on issues that actually matter in the world. Still, I don't react the way you do, despite being so angry and depressed about said ignorance in the world that at times I lose the desire to live.

Also your follow up on how not knowing the mechanics made the game more special made me lol. Thing is though, you can find all those stats...in game....so it has absolutely ****ing nothing to do with actually hiding mechanics or some other pointless bull**** like what Luco was defending. Cuz see, those stats, you know, the things that tell you Charizard isn't that good...it's right there in the little stats menu in game. You know, the opposite of hidden.

So this little statement:


Pretty much objectively sucks ***.

I'd say nice try anyway but then I'd be speaking disingenuously.

But when you attempt to understand a game on a mechanical level, you're trading the epicness for competitiveness or efficiency. When we played RBY as kids, not many people would've known that zard had a lower attack stat than seaking, because people didn't get the two pokemon with the same IVs, raise them to level 100 and max out their EVs and then compare which one had a higher attack stat (but you already need to understand the mechanics to do all of this anyway). You would have to do that seeing as base stats were pretty much hidden. You would learn that by looking at the base stats of the pokemon online, and if you're doing that then you're interested in understanding the game at a mechanical level.

 

[theeboredone]

Hm, I've read some posts here and how some have mentioned that today's young generation will look back on the top tier games of this era and see them in a nostalgic manner.

I also think that nostalgia may also promote longevity in a franchise. Today's 13 year old CoD fan may still be playing it when he's a full grown adult. Though I suppose it's more important to look at some concrete examples, mainly the Nintendo franchises, because they've had the longest stay with Mario, Zelda, DK, Metroid, Pokemon, etc. Most of their games are universally acclaimed or considered good, but I also wonder if nostalgia gets in the way of scoring some of these games. I see a lot of newer franchises or lesser games get penalized for the same things that can be complained about to these games. The main ones I see critics deduct points on are repetitiveness, story, and presentation, yet I hardly see it from these nostalgic icons. When games get scored well, better chance to sell. On top of that, you can count on your core fan base of purchasing these games as well.

 

[Luco]

Diablo 1 and 2 general is really good at making the experience harder than it really is, which is kinda bad. The fact of the matter is that some things are good in spite of shortcomings, **** like Super Street Fighter 2 Turbo having hard ****in inputs, Melee having l canceling instead of just giving the characters half the lag they have right now from aerials, etc.

Okay but if people like it (which they do, diablo II's fan base is ridiculous) then this has a hand in determining what is considered 'good game design'. But you said it yourself, some games are fine in spite of shortcomings. This is how I view this game we're talking about.

In any case, from a 'game design' point of view, having no completely hidden stats is actually often pretty bad. if a player knows this then it reduces the amount of fun. Take a first person shooter. A carbine might shoot just slightly faster than an assault rifle but then the carbine may be just slightly less accurate. A player who knows this who is good with accuracy will then just pick the carbine and go nuts. It changes the way players play and this can be to a game's detriment. I can't say I think it's a great thing that a Ganondorf will pretty much always lose to a meta knight (at top level play), although to be fair this was worked out by the players. There are exceptions but still, even competitively it just reduces variety between, for instance, characters you will see and verse (in the case of brawl) or guns you will be shot at with, etc etc.

If you know exactly how long it will take you to level from one to another assuming you just grind, you're probably not going to play that game for very long. Part of the challenge is working these things out for yourself.

Also in pokemon your hidden element to game wasn't your stats, it was your enemy's stats. Yeah you may have a rough idea that fire blast is pretty powerful but back when red and blue were released, you had the stats but you didn't even know what the power modifier on any given attack was DOING to your actual attack. Maybe your attack didn't come in to it at all. These were things I wondered as a kid and had a lot of fun just having the vague idea in my head with.

There are things that you 'know', and then there are things that you know. The difference between them can mean the difference between a fun one and a not-so-fun one, the difference between bad game design and good game design. true enough that this is a 'for most games' formula. There are some, as i've said, that break the barriers and do fine.

Also i'd like to point out that you can discredit what I say about the community but in essence its the people that play a game that determine what is good game design and bad game design. It's the audience that developers need to cater to, not just themselves.

Most of, if not all the stuff i've said here is supported by game design textbooks and courses. I understand where you're coming from but it's not like i'm just pulling this stuff out of my hat, you know.

Anyway, sorry that complicated piece took me so long to spurt out. I needed a bit of help getting my thoughts in order!

 

[Teran]

It lost a lot of epicness to me when I realised things like that charizard isn't as epic as his appearance suggests and has weaker attack than seaking, that nidoking has weaker attack than sandslash etc. Also that it's more efficient to solo the game with one pokemon rather than build a balanced team of six. However I did like finding out about the personalised crit rates and how IVs and EVs made every pokemon unique.

Not soloing the game the first time you played it!

Noob

Didn't pay attention to anything important in the game...

Noob

Hm

Did you even lift play Stadium?

Also,

Just in general not being intimidated by anything or finding anything epic anymore. The game is only epic or challenging if do you a nuzlocke that limits your ability to level your pokemon (I allow only two visits per pokecentre, I honestly don't see how a nuzlocke is challenging without a pokecentre limit).

Yeah newsflash, the game isn't meant to be challenging, it's an adventure that even a 5 year old should be able to complete. The inherent challenge of the game comes from facing other people. Unfortunately, they make that VERY unfair. Personally the actual battle mechanics now aren't terrible, sure there are certain moves and pokémon that dominate the metagame, but that's just partly preference and partly just the fact that variety = tiers.

The problem with Pokémon is not the single player adventures because honestly those are actually the best parts of the game. Stupid characters, amusing stories, introduces you to all the pokémon extensively (so you know the basic things like type when it comes to multiplayer battles) etc. What's wrong with Pokémon is its stupid hidden value grinding system. I had a very efficient breeding and EV training system in 4th gen, combining stuff like the Pokétch, Power Items and Pokérus, but you know what was much better?

PokéSAV.

It pissed me off that I had to do that, but I was taking important exams that year and I wasn't going to spend 30 hours at a time to obtain an acceptable pokémon for battle. Also **** Shoddy.

Anyway, Pokémon 1st gen, seriously all those obvious things about it killed it for you? I don't like bragging, but this doesn't even count as bragging, I picked up on all of that stuff when I was like 9. As Falcon said, they're right there, in the game menus. Crit manupulation, it just sort of comes as a noticed pattern, kids who believe things like holding buttons increases catch rate are definitely more open to the idea of certain mechanics existing. STAB. Worked it out. Stat exp. Worked it out.

Killed the magic?

No.

I had this thing called an imagination, and it made the game pretty legendary.

I still play it with glee.

 

[Falconv1.0]

In any case, from a 'game design' point of view, having no completely hidden stats is actually often pretty bad. if a player knows this then it reduces the amount of fun. Take a first person shooter. A carbine might shoot just slightly faster than an assault rifle but then the carbine may be just slightly less accurate. A player who knows this who is good with accuracy will then just pick the carbine and go nuts. It changes the way players play and this can be to a game's detriment. I can't say I think it's a great thing that a Ganondorf will pretty much always lose to a meta knight (at top level play), although to be fair this was worked out by the players. There are exceptions but still, even competitively it just reduces variety between, for instance, characters you will see and verse (in the case of brawl) or guns you will be shot at with, etc etc.

This is a ridiculously stupid argument because a weapon's stats can be easily tested and found out, and they generally are in all games, and in a lot of games they do in fact just straight up tell you the stats. This is absolutely nothing like a ****ing level stat you have to grind to be perfect that has a few weird rules to it and can't be seen and thus is hard to measure unless you start from level 1, and online guide, and some paper to write down your ****in' ev's.

Not only that, but you're saying players being ignorant to which gun is better means it kills variety, meaning it is a detriment? What the ****? Welcome to EVERY COMPETITIVE GAME UNDER THE SUN.

If you know exactly how long it will take you to level from one to another assuming you just grind, you're probably not going to play that game for very long. Part of the challenge is working these things out for yourself.

You shouldn't have to grind. There is no challenge in grinding.

What the **** is wrong with you.

Also in pokemon your hidden element to game wasn't your stats, it was your enemy's stats.

I like how now you're trying to make your defense of hidden **** even more vague when I already said it's ok for certain things to not be as explicit, although in the case of pokemon enemies, hiding the stats is one hell of a ****ing arbitrary way of making the game harder.

Yeah you may have a rough idea that fire blast is pretty powerful but back when red and blue were released, you had the stats but you didn't even know what the power modifier on any given attack was DOING to your actual attack. Maybe your attack didn't come in to it at all. These were things I wondered as a kid and had a lot of fun just having the vague idea in my head with.

Being unable to get a good idea of how much damage you can reliably do is an awful idea. Don't ever bring this kind of **** up and expect to be taken seriously.

Also i'd like to point out that you can discredit what I say about the community but in essence its the people that play a game that determine what is good game design and bad game design. It's the audience that developers need to cater to, not just themselves.

This is a ridiculous statement. So, according to that, how large the audience is means that it's well designed. I guess with that being said Jack and Jill was a better movie than anything that didn't do as well as it did. I guess Skyrim is really well designed. I could keep going but I'm not going to.

I'd love for you to show me the sources, exact ****ing sources, for these "design textbooks and courses", especially seeing how I can't really take them seriously because there are zero majorly respected schools for game design. Also, you realize they largely teach you the nuts and bolts of how to make a game over actual design philosophy, right? That's kinda why Egoraptor manages to point out **** most people PAID TO ****ING DO DON'T SEEM TO NOTICE.

Seriously **** you for taking this much of my time, your arguments are so weak it's not even funny.

I'm gonna repeat this again:

Hidden stats that affect outside factors can be good for a game, like for random stuff, thus creating new scenarios for replay value. Hidden stats that are constant and are a must to know are ****ing ridiculous, the fact that such a thing was never fixed bugs the hell out of me.

And stop ****ing confusing the devs not giving you a tutorial on everything ever for INVISIBLE STATS YOU CAN'T SEE AND MOST LIKELY WOULD NEVER NOTICE being a huge part of the competitive metagame.

Stop arguing with me til you can actually make me at least kinda think before I answer, this is stupid.

Also lol@ Dre. Yeah make personal statements against me because your argument failed and now Teran is ****ting on you as well. Look at me, being so irrational and depressed, weeeeee.

 

[Dre89]

Falcon- You were the one who made personal comments first when you mentioned that you want to design games and when you called other people stupid.

Also, it's better to show why my arguments failed than to say 'lol your argument failed your stupid'. You say Teran is owning me as if Teran is some kind of infallible authority. Being one of the most respect members here doesn't make him automatically correct.

I don't understand why you need to get so worked up. I've had discussions about issues such as God, religion, homosexuality, abortion, morality etc. where people haven't been as worked up as you. Do you really think this is a bigger deal than those issues?

Teran- So you're telling me that when you were 9 years old, you knew the crit rates and base stats of the majority of the pokemon? You knew that alakazam had a 23% crit rate? You knew that electrode was the fastest pokemon in the game? You knew that sandlash outclassed marowak in every stat? You knew that focus energy was glitched? You knew that high crit moves time your crit rate by eight?

Everyone knew the pokemon had stats. It's the specifics that no one knew back then that I'm talking about.

I don't know what the stadium comment was about.

Also, the hidden IV/EV system isn't a problem at all. The games are easy enough that you can easily beat them without knowing about this system at all. They're really only for competitive players and aren't needed in-game.

Keeping them hidden keeps the magic for casual players. Don't tell me that it didn't ruin the magic for you, because you didn't understand the mechanics on the level that I'm talking about, no one did.

I also play RBY competitively now, so that could have something to do with killing the magic, seeing as now I look at pokemon mathematically and through the scope of tiers and efficiency.

And don't play the imagination card. I guarantee I've applied my imagination to video games more than you have. Not because of anything specific that you've said, but moreso because it'd be pretty hard to beat out the way I've personally applied video games to my imagination or vice versa.

 

[Falconv1.0]

than to say 'lol your argument failed your stupid'. You say Teran is owning me as if Teran is some kind of infallible authority. Being one of the most respect members here doesn't make him automatically correct.

Actually, no, it's because his post was just plain better than yours.

Oh and for the record, I don't feel the need to justify the fact that I'm an ***, and I don't pretend it's a positive trait. Just putting it out there. Also, once again you're bringing up the "ur gettin 2 worked up" **** no matter how many times I've said my way of speaking generally doesn't convey how much emotion I actually feel, it's not my problem that you get butthurt because I'm not nice and it quite frankly has nothing to do with the argument soooooo you're just trying to find new reasons to insult me, when I say anything is stupid it's in direct relation to how someone is using faulty logic to back up a bull**** point rather than, you know "oh ur 2 mean calm down lol".

But hey whatever I'm sure that's just gonna get ignored and at some point soon in the future someone else is once again gonna go "haha Falcon's so dumb and mad all the time lol".

I'm done arguing with you, Dre. At least Luco is putting some sense of effort into the actual debate rather than trying to play the holier than thou card or whatever the **** it is you're doing.

 

[Dre89]

Actually, no, it's because his post was just plain better than yours.

Oh and for the record, I don't feel the need to justify the fact that I'm an ***, and I don't pretend it's a positive trait. Just putting it out there. Also, once again you're bringing up the "ur gettin 2 worked up" **** no matter how many times I've said my way of speaking generally doesn't convey how much emotion I actually feel, it's not my problem that you get butthurt because I'm not nice and it quite frankly has nothing to do with the argument soooooo you're just trying to find new reasons to insult me, when I say anything is stupid it's in direct relation to how someone is using faulty logic to back up a bull**** point rather than, you know "oh ur 2 mean calm down lol".

But hey whatever I'm sure that's just gonna get ignored and at some point soon in the future someone else is once again gonna go "haha Falcon's so dumb and mad all the time lol".

I'm done arguing with you, Dre. At least Luco is putting some sense of effort into the actual debate rather than trying to play the holier than thou card or whatever the **** it is you're doing.

So you're being rude, and by asking you to calm down I'm the bad guy?

Calling people stupid and mentioning the fact that you're not nice has just as much to do with the argument as me asking you to calm down, so I'm not sure where you're going with that point.

The reason why you like debating Luco is because he's being nice and not calling you out for your behaviour. If you're going to insult people by calling them stupid, you have to be prepared to be able to handle some form of criticism in returm.

You're making it out as if all I've done is suggest that I'm superior to you. I'm just asking you to calm down, whilst at the same time arguing my point, whether you agree with the logic or not.

You say I avoid the debate by acting pious, yet all my previous posts have had arguments in them. Ironically, this is the second post in a row where you haven't actually made an argument against any of my points, so it appears that you have set a double standard.

 

[Falconv1.0]

I didn't say you're avoiding debate, I'm saying I really don't feel like arguing stupid personal **** as well. I use rude language, I'm not nice, I'm perfectly calm. Thing is though, you're gonna keep saying "you need to calm down something something more serious issues" and I'm gonna make this face at the screen: .____.

But if you need one more response to this "debate", learning more numbers in a game clearly driven by ****in numbers didn't "kill the magic" for me. EV's/IV's are not noticed by casual players and you're pretty much lying if you claim otherwise.

I'm done arguing with the guy trying to explain to me how the mechanics of a game kills the "magic" of it. It's ridiculous. You don't use EPICNESS as way to defend something that genuinely does not affect the casual scene and ****s up the competitive scene, cuz you know, that's doing no good for anyone and harm to people who want to take it seriously by forcing them to grind like a mother**** or hack.

But seriously people should just stop playing pokemon competitively. But w/e.

 

[Teran]

Teran- So you're telling me that when you were 9 years old, you knew the crit rates and base stats of the majority of the pokemon?

I knew criticals were influenced by speed, or rather noticed it. I didn't know of base stats as raw numbers, but I knew that each species had inherent levels of ability in stats, you know, by actually paying attention to what I was playing.

You knew that alakazam had a 23% crit rate?

No

You knew that electrode was the fastest pokemon in the game?

Yes, how do you think I beat Mewtwo in Stadium so easily? Guaranteed Thunder Wave crippling. Ayup.

You knew that sandlash outclassed marowak in every stat?

No, I knew that Sandslash and Marowak were crap and not worth the time to study in depth.

You knew that focus energy was glitched?

I knew it did nothing.

You knew that high crit moves time your crit rate by eight?

No, I knew they essentially always scored you a crit!

Everyone knew the pokemon had stats. It's the specifics that no one knew back then that I'm talking about.

Yeah, and people who decided to do more than LOL ****ING ****** I HAVE A MEWTWO instead of paying attention to what happens in the game worked them out.

I don't know what the stadium comment was about.

It was a comment about Pokémon Stadium's inherent difficulty, Pokémon Stadium was probably more of a challenge than my actual friends, because they were idiots who would do stuff like have a Blastoise with Hydro Pump, Surf, Water Gun, and Dig thinking that was an awesome ****in mon right there.

Also, the hidden IV/EV system isn't a problem at all. The games are easy enough that you can easily beat them without knowing about this system at all. They're really only for competitive players and aren't needed in-game.

Multiplayer is the essence of what keeps Pokémon infinitely replayable. Always has been.

Keeping them hidden keeps the magic for casual players. Don't tell me that it didn't ruin the magic for you, because you didn't understand the mechanics on the level that I'm talking about, no one did.

Dude, the booklet TOLD you about IVs in 1st gen, and it also told you that training Pokémon is beneficial to their stats, so yes in a crude sense I did know. Thankfully it was Stat Exp so it wasn't such a big thing, it was just a case of training all the way. Just because you lived in a bubble of ignorance as a childhood player doesn't mean we were all like that. The idea of streamlined training did NOT ruin the magic for me, the magic for me was in the premise of the game, not the fact that "this game has a set of numerical rules and mechanics". Oh gee ya think? What else is a videogame made up of, gumballs and candy cane?

I also play RBY competitively now, so that could have something to do with killing the magic, seeing as now I look at pokemon mathematically and through the scope of tiers and efficiency.

I don't know it seems like you're implying ignorance = magic. I mean in some cases this is true, but it's kinda like saying "oh as a kid I didn't know that kicking a football with my shin while leaning back was ********, I always felt such a sense of magic when falling over because I thought it was so epic the amount of exertion I put into it! Now that I know to keep my posture right and follow through correctly with insides or laces, I feel the magic of the game is gone."

Okay.

And don't play the imagination card. I guarantee I've applied my imagination to video games more than you have.

Oh sure okay.

 

[Dre89]

Falcon- Ok we'll just leave it at since it won't go anywhere further.

Epicness and appeal are two different things. The game is appealing to me in a different way now than it was before I learned the mechanics.

As a point of escapism, it's harder to suspend disbelief because now I see them more as just data rather than creatures even though I always knew that's what they were. And don't say to me you don't suspend disbelief because you would never enjoy any game outside of the puzzle genre.

And pokemon has plenty of replayability outside of multiplayer. You have stadium cups, nuzlockes, solo runs, monotype runs, building teams to verse in stadium, stadium cups with restrictions like monotype or NFEs etc.

I play difficult nuzlockes to get the epic atmosphere back now. It's epic again for me because I have to plan out my errands and actually fear regular trainers now.

 

[Teran]

To me I don't see how them becoming data takes away from the escapism. Everyone knows they are data. If you created software with lions, tigers, and elephants, they would all have different data and for battling they would all have their inherent strengths/weaknesses. Doesn't make bulldozing *****es with an elephant any less hilarious.

And obviously I DO suspend disbelief, but to me the data does nothing to hinder that, I twist the data to augment my experience. IVs are basically genetics to me, the variation within the species (apparently Pokémon are all sub-species of one creature actually!). EVs? Focused training. Think about it, if you want to get stronger you lift heavy weights, you streamline your training. I dislike EVs but hey again I would rather improve the reality in which they exist. I could go on but I think you get the point. I can imagine running drills and **** with my Pokémon, getting READY BROTHER for the main event.

It does have plenty of replayability outside of multiplayer, I know this first hand because my friends first sucked and then didn't play beyond 2nd gen. However it is undeniable that the replay value is designed around multiplayer.

You seem to be one of those people who thinks the magic of something disappears when you know how it works. Like some people are upset that scientists worked out the biochemical mechanisms for love because "that ruins the magic, why would you want to konw?" It seems the same with you and Pokémon. By that logic, drug addicts could be told the mechanism of heroin and the magic of the high will instantly disappear for them, allowing them to quit! Sure.

Think of it this way. You have delicious cake mix. You know all the ingredients, you put them together and you bake them. You know EVERY component that goes into this cake, even the secret dash of vanilla essence you added, and then you take it out of the oven and eat it.

You know what the result is?

Delicious cake.

Knowing what went into didn't change that.

 

[Falconv1.0]

He keeps going on about "epic", tell me what the **** is so EPIC about invisible stats no casual player notices yet has a super ****ty effect on competitive play?

Epic sure is a fun word to throw around in place of an argument.

 

[Teran]

That was epic! That was epic for the win chuck norris approves lelele xD lulz

No but in all seriousness Dre, I'm only trying to convince you the magic isn't gone. That's not a bad thing right? If you want to remain cynical to it that's perfectly fine, but while you're sitting the moaning about the crushing revelations, I'll laughing like a little child while I hurl abuse at my defeated 8-bit rival.

 

[Dre89]

I like that IVs are like genes etc. I'd prefer that than every caterpie being the same.

The problem for me isn't so much knowing that they have stats, it's the fact that I know so many specific stats. In RBY I probably know like 70% of the base stats of fully evolved pokemon, and have a rough idea of the crit rates of most of them as well.

I'm not the only person who thinks that learning the game competitively kills a lot of the magic. It's one thing knowing that pokemon have stats, it's another thing knowing all of those stats. I would definitely advise not learning the mechanics at a competitive level unless you intend to play competitively.

 

[Teran]

But I played RBY competitively quite extensively.

Killed no magic for me.