# Pokémon - Casual Children's Game or Competitive Strategy?



## Ryukouki (Oct 11, 2013)

​Can you guys believe it? We are almost twenty-four hours away from the start of the next generation of the Pokémon franchise. Those of you who are browsing from international locales, enjoy the game! To celebrate, I figured it was time to write something about Pokémon to, well, "set the mood." Living in a society where becoming a grown up means dropping things that may have been enjoyable in the past, it is nice to be able to go back to a major part of my childhood days with the Pokémon series and enjoy it for what it really is. Having been trained to look at the series in a competitive aspect, it is always interesting to hear the opinions of whether or not this game was strictly geared towards the casual audience or whether it could blur the line of hardcore competitive strategy. It is time to jump in a little bit and explore what the franchise has to offer in terms of competitive and casual gameplay.​​[prebreak]Continue reading[/prebreak]​​Pokémon has always been about making friends and getting together for some battling. For those who are completely unaware of the existence of the franchise and just happened to stop by, Pokémon involves raising creatures. As these creatures grow stronger, they obtain new skills and increased stat points. What the ordinary player; for instance, children, may not realize is that Pokémon gain "hidden" values called IV and EV points. These points create status gains that yield a more competitive edge, which is reliant on the nature of said Pokémon. The newest games, Pokémon X and Pokémon Y, seek to make this process of earning EV and IV points easier. As a bit of foreshadowing into a future works, I will be discussing the new Pokémon games in more detail at a later date, so stay tuned for that. The past generations involved mindless slaughter of thousands of the same Pokémon to obtain the desired points. Legitimately maximizing a Pokémon's potential could take dozens if not hundreds of hours. Battle simulators such as Pokémon Online or Pokémon Showdown can do these stat gains automatically at the click of the mouse. Other means of increasing these points involved using codes and computer programs such as PokéSav or PokéGen from the Project Pokémon communities.​​A vast amount of players utilize these programs to create a competitive team to battle or impress their friends with. Most children, however, would be unaware such programs exist. Most children that I know of who play Pokémon merely play for the sake of the adventure, paying little attention to the minute details that the competitive battling has to offer, instead focusing on the story of friendship, as the series story lines are more geared towards children, much like the anime. Most children assemble a ragtag team of prized creatures and call it a day. Children would not care much about whether or not a Garchomp's Sand Force will mesh well with a weather team or how Blaziken with Speed Boost could be an outright banned or "Uber tier" combo. I find that children merely are concerned with just dropping the life bar down to zero. For those of us who have stuck around since Generation I or have taken a look at the Smogon University we see that Pokémon is a much deeper series than anticipated, as every single thing counts. Natures are of vital importance in assembling a team. Creating the right set of 252/252/4 EVs and IVs to mesh together with the overall theme of a team takes time to compile as well. Having participated in the Pokémon competitive scene, I can say that a very solid team has taken several hours to compile and complete. Deciding when to switch out a Pokémon and attempting to predict the opponent's next move is all part of the mystique that is competitive battling. With that, where do we draw the line and say that Pokémon is for casuals and where do we draw the lines and say that Pokémon is considered a competitive game? Is it wrong to consider Pokémon a competitive game?​​

_Tables like this are a staple to learning competitive play. This is the table of EV considerations._​​To consider Pokémon as a casual type game, a broad definition needs to be provided. The "casual" Pokémon gamer is considered as a player who lightly raises Pokémon without seriously considering IV/EV values, and using personal favorites to battle with friends. Casual players can also take the game pace and enjoy the story aspects. This is a very broad definition. What makes the games "casual" though? Some people think that the casualness comes from the fact that Pokémon is a children's game, a classification that I find wrong. Critics complain that the story of the games are rather weak and way too child friendly, but the story to me was never of vital importance. Other critics claim that the game just lacks innovation and the introducing of newer creatures appears more and more lackluster with each new generation. And of course, a competitive definition is one that utilizes a specific Pokémon's traits and creates a team based around these aspects. For instance, one of the most popular types of teams in competitive battling is weather based teams. Such teams could consist of Sand Storm users, complete with units such as Garchomp with specific abilities, movesets, and stat points. There are many factors to consider, and I find that the best competitive strategies are the ones that provide balance against many other team types. Most competitive players I find say that they disregard the story and focus on training and obtaining their ultimate team, either through the handheld games or through battle simulation. There is a third "tier" we could add here, and that is the group of players who aim to complete the Pokédex in its entirety, a challenge considering the fact that there are now over 700 creatures to collect.​​Is it wrong if you are a casual player? Absolutely not. I acknowledge that there are times when a player simply wants to get together with friends and fight. I do this all the time, actually. Meanwhile, if you are on a competitive ladder, the stakes are slightly higher with ladder rankings dependent on tier and points that are allocated, as seen on the popular simulator Pokémon Showdown. I personally stand in the middle as both a competitive and casual batting player. I obviously will not use my competitive based teams against a casual friend. It ruins the fun. Where do you draw the line when classifying yourself?​​To close off, these drawings of the boundaries between casual and competitive are entirely subjective based on the individual experience. Every person who enjoys the Pokémon franchise can draw their own conclusions about the games, but I would love to hear feedback. Are you more of a competitive player? Are you a casual player who loves the social aspect of Pokémon? Feel free to chime off in the comments below! I look forward to seeing you guys in Generation VI!​


----------



## Zaertix (Oct 11, 2013)

I think this is the first generation I'll get into the competitive side of Pokemon. I usually play it and I'm done with it, but I think with live-streaming, and the general social importance of the last few generations has changed my gaming style.

But regardless, I don't know if I'll go HARDCORE competitive where I spend HOURS upon HOURS EV/IV training and min/maxing my team, just seems to ruin the enjoyment to me.


----------



## Wombo Combo (Oct 11, 2013)

Casual stopped playing after middle school just cant get into it anymore.


----------



## calmwaters (Oct 11, 2013)

It's not really the battles as much as it is the collecting. I took the Pokemon motto to heart: "Gotta catch 'em all!" So I've never gone past FireRed; too many Pokemon to catch. Of course I do have my level 50 Pikachu, Kadabra, Hypno, Blastoise, Persian, Raticate. And occasionally Pidgeot/(Gengar now that I got him)/Dugtrio/Snorlax/Gyarados/Ponyta...


----------



## Transdude1996 (Oct 11, 2013)

Pokemon sort of has a casual feel to it, but becomes very competitive once you involve friends into the mix.


----------



## The Catboy (Oct 11, 2013)

Why not both? 
I play tend to play it with a mix of casual like when I am on break at work, but then when I have the time I do EV/IV training, breeding for personality, ect.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 11, 2013)

I went ahead and added the "both" option on the poll.


----------



## Xexyz (Oct 11, 2013)




----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 11, 2013)

For the meantime, those of you that have already voted, I changed the polling a bit so you can add another response. It's a temporary measure of sorts until I figure out how to reset the poll lol.


----------



## omgpwn666 (Oct 11, 2013)

Casual for me. My whole party will probably be Digletts and Lickatongues.


----------



## ShadowFyre (Oct 11, 2013)

Pokemon is fairly good RPG considering how much replayeability you can get out of it compared to other RPGs.  That being said, I enjoy a healthy combination of attempting to finish my living pokedex before X/Y come out, and creating new teams to battle strangers with. Its a pretty versatile game, where the only flaws I can really articulate is the lack of story and increasingly weird pokemon.  However, I can't stand IV breeding/EV training any of my pokemon, need pokegen for that. It seems stupid to put that much time in to legitimacy when people can create those pokemon in seconds, and when you want a big roster of metagame pokemon for versatility in battling.


----------



## Bowser-jr (Oct 11, 2013)

I agree with ShadowFyre on the whole EV/IV training. With our current methods, it takes way to long. I rather use Pokesav for getting my held items and using pokegen to set up the right nature and EV. Of couse, that might be a thing of the past due to no one working on Pokegen/Pokesav anymore. Not to mention that the Pokebank will have some sort of "new" encryption which will make the harder. Unless they add some new and easier methods to EV train pokemon, we either gonna be stuck to using the long in-game methods or wait for a new "Pokegen" for gen 6 to come out.


----------



## ResleyZ (Oct 11, 2013)

When I went to this years GamesCom, there were nearly no 'children' at the X/Y booth. While it may be made for children, the mechanics allows some really competitive gameplay.


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Oct 11, 2013)

Like others, I went with "both." I believe I've played every generation (except one), but I have never personally tried competitive battling. I just finished the story, collected Pokemon, etc. But like Zaertix, I think this generation might change things. I'll dip my toes into competitive battling, research how much effort it will take to make good Pokemon in the new system, and see where it takes me.


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 11, 2013)

Both, coz it really depends on how you see it,
For me its my Anti stress game, but its also my "kick everyone i know, online and on gbatemp's asses" game


----------



## aiat_gamer (Oct 11, 2013)

I do not understand much about this since I have never played a Pokemon game in my life, but did IO understand correctly? are you saying only children play these games casually?


----------



## Pedeadstrian (Oct 11, 2013)

aiat_gamer said:


> I do not understand much about this since I have never played a Pokemon game in my life, but did IO understand correctly? are you saying only children play these games casually?


No, what he meant was that children are less likely to be competitive battlers, and more likely to play the game because they enjoy the story, theme, etc.


----------



## Vipera (Oct 11, 2013)

////


----------



## MelodieOctavia (Oct 11, 2013)

While the game started out strictly geared towards children, I think it's evolved (no pun intended) to also target those who grew up with the game as children themselves. There are obvious nods to that goal all over previous games, and I'm sure X/Y will be no different.


----------



## The Real Jdbye (Oct 11, 2013)

Both, for sure.
They did a pretty good job at designing a system that is both child friendly, yet complex. You don't have to get into things like EV training, breeding and movesets to play and enjoy the game, but if you want to, it's there, and it adds a very competitive aspect to the game.


----------



## mehrab2603 (Oct 11, 2013)

I finished every game before BW. I got into competitive battling at that time and didn't feel like playing the games anymore. Now I only do competitive battling on Pokémon Online and Showdown.


----------



## Gahars (Oct 11, 2013)

Hey, if people can act like Smash Bros. is competitive, then I guess anything is.

I mean, I don't know why you'd want it to be. The competitive crowd for these games is as awful and cancerous as they come. ("Muh EVs! Muh IVs! And no sand attack, guys, this is serious!"/"Final Destination, Fox only, no items, no fun!" etc.)


----------



## Sop (Oct 11, 2013)

no, i don't personally play the games for their competitive aspects, i find them boring. but i do enjoy trying to collect every pokemon.


----------



## Sakitoshi (Oct 11, 2013)

I do enjoy the story AND play competitively online(japaneses and their uber teams, fucking hate Rottom-W ). once I'm done with the story I end up with high level pokemons so I only need to select moves and call pokegen to help me with EVs and done, is the easiest way to do things or at least that's why I did with gen5.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 11, 2013)

I'm going to vote _"Both"_, but I have to elaborate as to why I did so.

It's a casual game for kids... which has a now-convoluted stats system so it can be considered _"competitive"_ by the die-hard fans of the series, and it's only getting more and more convoluted, so here's for hoping that the next generation will simplify certain things _(hidden stat values that you cannot check anywhere in the game? NO! Bad Game Freak, very bad! I want to know the base stats BEFORE I waste time training a Pokemon to a higher level without knowing that he'll be leveling up in a crappy way)_.

I also have to address something that was said in this thread, namely that it's a _"good RPG game"_. It's not. A good RPG game is a game of, well, role-playing, as the name implies. In Pokemon, your character has zero impact on the world around him/her, it's the team of Pokemon that you catch which actually matters, but even the monsters cannot really interact with the world. The aspect of playing a role or any kind of decision-making are completely absent from the game. Sure, you have stats and that's an RPG element, but there's a great number of video games out there which have stats systems and aren't RPG's at all. Sure, you have turn-based combat which is stereotypical for Japanese RPG's, but it's used in other genres too.

What I'm saying is that at the end of the day, your character could be gone and for all intents and purposes, the game would not change at all. You never really encounter meaningful dialogue where you could make any form of a choice and even when you do, the choice never matters and leads you to the same outcome. That's not to say that RPG's can't be linear - they can, but they have to allow you to role play, and this aspect is very poorly executed in Pokemon. I honestly believe that Shin Megami Tensei games generally perform better than Pokemon in the RPG department while belonging to the same sub-genre, wheras Pokemon focuses on the strategy and the adventuring aspects.

The main series of Pokemon is more akin to strategy games where Pokemon play the role of your units and it's the Pokemon who gain experience in battle, the exploration on the other hand is similar to adventure games with some map puzzles, rock crushing, plant cutting and so on, as we saw it in 2D Zelda titles, except on a much more modest scale.

We tend to put RPG's together into one basket, but there are certain distinctive features which can make a game closer or further from the RPG mold. Pokemon literally breaks the mold, and although it makes it a fun, unique game, its RPG elements greatly suffer in the process. In its country of origin, Pokemon and other games like it are percieved as members of a sub-genre of RPG focusing on catching and training monsters, not as typical RPG games, and we should probably apply the same classification here. If we were to grade Pokemon as a franchise solely on what it does _"right"_ in the RPG department, it would simply get a poor grade and it's not a poor game - it's just a game in its own genre and it executes the principles of said genre very well.


----------



## pilladoll (Oct 11, 2013)

I only played the games for enjoy, never for competitions. By the way, here in Mexico both games are on sale since yesterday !!! A popular game store are selling them before the oficial date.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 11, 2013)

Gahars said:


> Hey, if people can act like Smash Bros. is competitive, then I guess anything is.


 
You can literally do anything competitively - we live in the world where competitive eating is a thing y'know.


----------



## ßleck (Oct 11, 2013)

When I first started playing Pokemon (Red) back when I was four it was obviously for casual reasons. I only knew a couple words of English so I had no idea what was going on. All I knew was that I had to "kill" the Pokemon of trainers I met and become Champion. I didn't pay any attention to catching Pokemon either, so I only used my Charizard for battles.

As I grew up however I started caring for the story and completing everything the game had to offer. I thought I should assemble a nice team of the best Pokemon too. After a while the main game wasn't enough for me, I had to defeat everyone with the absolute best Pokemon. That's when I started being competitive.

The point I want to make is that to children it might be just a casual game, but for the older Pokemon fans it's mostly a competitive game. So, to answer the questions.  I don't find Pokemon a casual nor a competitive game. It depends on who is playing it. And I personally enjoy Pokemon as a competitive game.


----------



## breaktemp (Oct 11, 2013)

well, seeing as i have competed in just about every pokemon regional and national VGC...i selected competitive.  

it is always fun creating new combos and such  " 

* double battles are my favorite *


----------



## Xexyz (Oct 11, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> For the meantime, those of you that have already voted, I changed the polling a bit so you can add another response. It's a temporary measure of sorts until I figure out how to reset the poll lol.


you know how to change the poll?


----------



## Chary (Oct 11, 2013)

That's why this series is so great. The collecting factor, and creatures make it appealing to casuals. The deep competitive training is geared to hardcore players. You get the best of both worlds.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 11, 2013)

Foxi4 said:


> You can literally do anything competitively - we live in the world where competitive eating is a thing y'know.


 
And competitive masturbating. *He says, as he proudly displays his 12 "First place" Medals* 


As for Pokemanz, it's a bit of both. But every Pokemanz game I've ever played I played it in a casual way, I'm not gonna go around crying about IV's or EV's or UV's or whatever the fuck poketards cry about. Hell, I hardly even know what the fuck they even are.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 11, 2013)

Tom Bombadildo said:


> And competitive masturbating. *He says, as he proudly displays his 12 "First place" Medals*
> 
> 
> As for Pokemanz, it's a bit of both. But every Pokemanz game I've ever played I played it in a casual way, I'm not gonna go around crying about IV's or EV's or UV's or whatever the fuck poketards cry about. Hell, I hardly even know what the fuck they even are.


 

HAH! I thought you'd be the one to go, heh, Pokemon is for casual scum.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Oct 11, 2013)

Ryukouki said:


> HAH! I thought you'd be the one to go, heh, Pokemon is for casual scum.


 
POKEMANZ IS FOR CASUAL SCUM GET ON MY LEVEL AND PLAY A REAL GAME LIKE FARMING SIMULATOR 2013 WHAT KIND OF GAME IS POKEMAN ANYWAYS YOU PLAY AS SOME 10 YEAR OLD THAT'S JUST CREEPY NOW IF YOU'LL EXCUSE ME I HAVE TO GO HARVEST SOME CROPS, Y'KNOW, IN MY SUPERIOR IN EVERY SINGLE WAY FARMING SIMULATOR 2013 KTHXBAI


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 11, 2013)

Vipera said:


> I bet there would be stuff like tic-tac-toe tournaments if there was enough interest.



Tic tac toe/noughts and crosses is a solved game and one solvable by nearly all humans (certainly all those that are in this thread can solve it) though.

As for the the matter at hand. Sure I can bust out the crazy maths with the system pokemon has cooked up, technically it would even punch above the likes of go (depending upon your point of view there are more moves available and concepts to consider). However I would find there are games where the maths has to be considerably crazier (basically pick anything like fire emblem and move upwards or sideways) and much of the "strategy" reduces down significantly (doubly so if you only consider viable ones) and is arguably capped as well (once you ev/iv train things you are approaching the actual limit of the system where it goes back to * is weak against *).
I am not sure if I would even make a great example as far as teaching/discussing the ideas of game theory and related maths at more than a cursory level either.

In the end I think I will adapt the audiophool concept and say "if you think it is competitive and it gets you to think then great, just do not expect your mates/someone that knows the maths to see it".


----------



## mr. fancypants (Oct 11, 2013)

well it just casual for me


----------



## Fishaman P (Oct 12, 2013)

I played Shoddy Battle in 4th Gen, then played a bit of 5th Gen when it came out.

Now I'm getting back into 5th Gen, and 6th Gen is exciting me.  I thought it was gonna suck, but all the best stuff wasn't revealed pre-release.


----------



## Ryukouki (Oct 12, 2013)

Fishaman P said:


> I played Shoddy Battle in 4th Gen, then played a bit of 5th Gen when it came out.
> 
> Now I'm getting back into 5th Gen, and 6th Gen is exciting me. I thought it was gonna suck, but all the best stuff wasn't revealed pre-release.


 

Oh yeah! Shoddy battle! That's what it was!! I was thinking about that but couldn't recall the name. I should be ashamed of myself.


----------



## gokujr1000 (Oct 12, 2013)

Definitely both for me. Pokemon allows you to play through the game at your own pace, whether it be casually or detailed, and lets you play how you want to play, like adding rulesets like Nuzlocke or just playing normally. It even offers enough things for both competitive and casual players after you beat the game. Competitive players get things like Ev's, Iv's, usually a battle tower or frontier and WIFI whereas Casual players get things like more story, more pokemon to catch and an entire Pokedex to complete. Pokemon truly is a game that caters to you which is incredibly special because not all games give you that freedom.


----------



## Hells Malice (Oct 12, 2013)

Pokemon obviously has a technical side, but at the end of the day, if you get two people with tricked out pokemon who know what they're doing, then all it is is team composition vs your opponents and not misplaying that wins.
There's strategy involved but at the same time its not a TON. There's a site that lets you set up pokebattles or do random ones, and with a weakness chart (unlike my pokenerd friend I can never remember this crap) and I won most battles. Hell I even beat my friend, who can name every weakness, and probably every pokemon and details about them.

But its also easy enough ingame to be a childrens game, anyone can beat the game with half a brain, even a 6 year old.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 12, 2013)

The games can be fun as a RPG-lite but as a hardcore strategy game? No, not really.

The whole EVs/IVs thing I think is really stupid. It was designed so that almost no two Pokemon would be the same, that your Blastoise would be unique to your friend's Blastoise. But of course the system was cracked and now people just abuse it for the sake of "being competitive". It's Super Smash Bros. all over again. Take a relatively simple game, break it, then call it "in-depth" and "competitive".

I miss when my games were just fun and not about being broken ;_;


----------



## chris888222 (Oct 12, 2013)

Pokemon has evolved a lot over the years. Today I see it as largely casual, but not so much to kids anymore. (Particularly the 6th gen, imo it doesn't really seem to be targeted at kids)

Of course it does have its "competitive" side, hence I voted both.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 12, 2013)

gokujr1000 said:


> like adding rulesets like Nuzlocke or just playing normally


As the game does not enforce it that is all you. You can do that for just about anything and as such it does not really count.


----------



## Flame (Oct 12, 2013)

I say both. Pokemon has something that no other game achieved as good(some sport games has), which is that you don't want to delete or lose your save because you have put alot of effort in yto that save file. And thats why like playing pokemon, because you build a relation with a game, as sad that maybe be. Its stil great.


----------



## gokujr1000 (Oct 12, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> As the game does not enforce it that is all you. You can do that for just about anything and as such it does not really count.


 

It does count. It adds to my point of how much freedom the game gives you.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 12, 2013)

gokujr1000 said:


> It does count. It adds to my point of how much freedom the game gives you.


Basically every game that does not force you to move on could be role played, made player limited or otherwise tweaked without so much as an extra cheat being activated. If you enjoy doing as such in pokemon that is fine, however as far as arguing it from a game theory/game design type perspective then it is not really useful.


----------



## Celice (Oct 12, 2013)

gokujr1000 said:


> It does count. It adds to my point of how much freedom the game gives you.


The game isn't giving you anything; rather, you are now exploiting and creating your own thing, regardless of the game, which you then act as if it were part of the game, or at least lend-worthy towards it.


----------



## gokujr1000 (Oct 13, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Basically every game that does not force you to move on could be role played, made player limited or otherwise tweaked without so much as an extra cheat being activated. If you enjoy doing as such in pokemon that is fine, however as far as arguing it from a game theory/game design type perspective then it is not really useful.


 

That just means it could also be used as a viable point when describing how much freedom another game gives you. Maybe we should just agree to disagree?


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 13, 2013)

Just finished the story of X & Y.

I appreciate that they've been adding deeper dimensions to their bad guys


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 13, 2013)

gokujr1000 said:


> That just means it could also be used as a viable point when describing how much freedom another game gives you. Maybe we should just agree to disagree?



Can't get there I am afraid -- the maths says it does not count (and though I can hack things you can hardly even "house rule" it like a board game or something), it was hardly the first "free roaming"/user restrictable game or a truly notable entry within it (notable game series, absolutely, notable game from an open world/freeform perspective, not even close) and the concept of runs or adding in a type of role playing is far from a new one either (variants and house rules have existed longer than computers have been around).


----------



## gokujr1000 (Oct 13, 2013)

FAST6191 said:


> Can't get there I am afraid -- the maths says it does not count (and though I can hack things you can hardly even "house rule" it like a board game or something), it was hardly the first "free roaming"/user restrictable game or a truly notable entry within it (notable game series, absolutely, notable game from an open world/freeform perspective, not even close) and the concept of runs or adding in a type of role playing is far from a new one either (variants and house rules have existed longer than computers have been around).


 

When did I say it was the first?


----------



## 2ndApex (Oct 13, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The games can be fun as a RPG-lite but as a hardcore strategy game? No, not really.
> 
> The whole EVs/IVs thing I think is really stupid. It was designed so that almost no two Pokemon would be the same, that your Blastoise would be unique to your friend's Blastoise. But of course the system was cracked and now people just abuse it for the sake of "being competitive". It's Super Smash Bros. all over again. Take a relatively simple game, break it, then call it "in-depth" and "competitive".
> 
> I miss when my games were just fun and not about being broken ;_;


 

How are either of these games "broken"?

Both of these games have a lot of depth and fast growing metagames, the only complaint I really have against Pokemon is that it's a really counterpick heavy game, but so are most TCG's.


----------



## FAST6191 (Oct 13, 2013)

gokujr1000 said:


> When did I say it was the first?




To be useful as a point of comparison things tend to have to be notably better/different than what came before or the first. There is some leeway for the ultra popular examples and that we do not typically call things doom clones any more says the rest of that line of logic.

This is risking becoming a circular line of not all that much reasoning though so I reckon a summary as I see it.
The OP questioned whether it was a competitive title. Competition as a term has roots several areas of maths like game theory, mechanism design, competition theory and such like right through to the AI that governs NPC battles.
The short version/result of all that is if the concepts are not in the rules then they do not count. This is not a bad thing and in the more general fields of game design such things arguably fall into the ideas of meta gameplay, something which by virtue of the cartoons, the cards, the comics and the like the people behind pokemon excelled at to an almost unparalleled degree (some of Valve's stuff, world of warcraft and maybe a handful of other "MMO" type games being the only things to even come distantly close). Similarly game theory is a limited discipline by virtue of it starting from the assumption that all actors are rational, though much as game design is more than numbers for the rules game theory recognises this and adapts to it.

My analysis of the maths of the game -- several hundred possible pokemon, several hundred moves a piece (limited no less), moves that are not preset, pp, hp, stats, battle alterable stats, incomplete information (I possibly do not know the pokemon you have, their PP at a given instance, their moves, their obedience...), items, items that can not be used in certain types of match (if my memory of red and blue holds you can not use a pokeflute in link battle, though I do have to also add that the pokeflute awakens both participants unlike the consumable item to do the same), random elements, arguably not a "take it in turns" battle and on and on leads to options at any one time, and AI to match, being basically impossible to consider from a supercomputer and certainly the human brain, this places it far above any noted board game too. However when narrowed down by catching and training the perfect pokemon with full ev/iv guides (something which is basically grinding), and also by virtue of the mechanics dismissing decent percentages of strategies, it reduces the complexity right back down to where a barely skilled human can manage the permutations once more. By virtue of this I struggle to call pokemon a competitive game when playing by the initial rules; given a reasonable grounding in the rules and a well picked set of ev/iv trained stuff* and the outcome is probably random, go to chess which is a far simpler game taken in light of the previous and I doubt anybody could beat a grandmaster but more to the point I do not see (and the maths would likely back me) the potential for chess grandmaster level play** within pokemon. It occurs to me that people have previously dubbed pokemon an entry to this style of game (more pejoratively "my first ..."). This is not quite the same as my issues with the likes of many "competitive" fighting games and tournaments using the game but such things share many of the same elements.

*for the record ev/iv is a fairly basic compound interest type of affair, nothing especially interesting as far as maths goes.

**after you know the pieces and their moves your next steps are to learn openings, mid games and end games, something that can not really happen in pokemon by virtue of the points (game theory definition of points) needed to win a match reducing play time to very few moves ("It's super effective").

If you like role playing in it, like runs/challenges like nuslocke or whatever, like the ev/iv scene then fantastic, and I commend the game's designers for pulling it off even if it is not an uncommon trait, and taken in light of some of the above it may even render it competitive, however that is all you and yours and not the game itself. In essence it is somewhat like playing a hacked game which is a different game from the perspective of the maths.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 13, 2013)

2ndApex said:


> How are either of these games "broken"?
> 
> Both of these games have a lot of depth and fast growing metagames, the only complaint I really have against Pokemon is that it's a really counterpick heavy game, but so are most TCG's.


 

My point is that their "depth" wasn't designed depth, it's just that people cracked the IV/EV system and ruined their original purpose. The game isn't designed to be so stupid, I mean like requiring you to grind a VERY SPECIFIC type of Pokemon for a bunch of values that are absolutely invisible to the game's naked eye is not designed depth. It's breaking the game to try and make it "competitive" and "in depth" when really it's just quite stupid.

In a TCG the game is designed to be as in depth as it's designed to be. And things that are stupid in the game are fixed. Here they never even attempted to make EVs and IVs their original purpose, they just went "Uh, y-yup that was the depth we designed all along!" It's not, the system was made so that no two Pokemon are the same since no one fights their Pokemon exactly the same.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 13, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> My point is that their "depth" wasn't designed depth, it's just that people cracked the IV/EV system and ruined their original purpose. The game isn't designed to be so stupid, I mean like requiring you to grind a VERY SPECIFIC type of Pokemon for a bunch of values that are absolutely invisible to the game's naked eye is not designed depth. It's breaking the game to try and make it "competitive" and "in depth" when really it's just quite stupid.


Exactly. If the values are not visible anywhere in the game then they weren't intended to be seen or in any way used by the user, the game was merely reverse-engineered and _"figured out"_ by the community. They weren't designed to be used though - they're not mentioned anywhere, there's no tutorial within the game proper treating about them, nothing. I'm a strong oponent of _"invisible values"_ like this - if the stats are influenced by IV and EV values then I should both be able to check them and be informed on how to improve them in the game proper.


----------



## emigre (Oct 13, 2013)

Just read this thread. This EV, IV shit seems pretty fucking tedious.​


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 13, 2013)

emigre said:


> Just read this thread. This EV, IV shit seems pretty fucking tedious.


 
Some people overthink it, and some people dont even try to think about it.
Then you have guys like me who acknowledge its existence and co-exist.


----------



## emigre (Oct 13, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Some people overthink it, and some people dont even try to think about it.
> Then you have guys like me who acknowledge its existence and co-exist.


 

This sounds like an opinion of the Israel-Palestine conflict than on Pokemon.


----------



## Foxi4 (Oct 13, 2013)

Black-Ice said:


> Some people overthink it, and some people dont even try to think about it.
> Then you have guys like me who acknowledge its existence and co-exist.


 
This isn't even about _"looking into it"_ too much, it's about fairness. I don't think it's fair that my friend has a very real chance of having a better Pokemon despite putting the same amount of work into leveling it up and applying the exact same strategy just because his dice roll was marginally better than mine.

Don't get me wrong - dice rolls and random events are all fine and dandy, but not when tens of hours hang in balance. If there is no way for me to check what I actually _"rolled out"_, leveling a Pokemon up may end up being a complete waste of my time, artificially extending the grinding cycle of an otherwise very simple stats system.


----------



## YayMii (Oct 13, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> My point is that their "depth" wasn't designed depth, it's just that people cracked the IV/EV system and ruined their original purpose. The game isn't designed to be so stupid, I mean like requiring you to grind a VERY SPECIFIC type of Pokemon for a bunch of values that are absolutely invisible to the game's naked eye is not designed depth. It's breaking the game to try and make it "competitive" and "in depth" when really it's just quite stupid.


EV/IV values (or "base stats" as they're officially called) are now visible in X/Y IIRC, and they've also added a fun way of training EVs (and a way to reset the stats if you don't train them to your liking), so the Pokemon team has embraced the competitive scene and is trying to support it. A few other games have also taken a similar approach to unintentional stuff like this; just because a mechanic wasn't originally meant to be in the game, doesn't mean that it doesn't provide benefit to the gameplay.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 13, 2013)

YayMii said:


> EV/IV values (or "base stats" as they're officially called) are now visible in X/Y IIRC, and they've also added a fun way of training EVs (and a way to reset the stats if you don't train them to your liking), so the Pokemon team has embraced the competitive scene and is trying to support it. A few other games have also taken a similar approach to unintentional stuff like this; just because a mechanic wasn't originally meant to be in the game, doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit gameplay.


 

Well my point is that it lost it's original purpose. It was to make every Pokemon different in some way, so that no two were the same and that your Pokemon were unique to you. Pokemon's central theme has always been camaraderie and being able to raise something unique to you. EVs and IVs did that. Each experience yielded unique Pokemon. Now that's all gone and it's just another stat that needs to be trained.

In "embracing the competitive" scene it's lost a bit of its own focus: to create an experience tailored to you. I'm just saying it's a really bad trade off and it makes the games feel so... cold and calculating instead of being a warm, personal experience.


----------



## Celice (Oct 13, 2013)

More than that, simply because it's now shifted to a visible stat in the game, does not mean that the developers "embrace" how gamers had manipulated the gameplay of the series, nor that they "support it". This isn't the first time a stat has been regimmicked in a series' latest entry. Most of the time it's just an easy way to look like new gameplay has been added, when really, it's kind of always been there.

The statement reeks of confirmation bias: "I always abused it this way; "it" is now featured in a more prominent manner; therfore, the developers encouraged and continue to encourage my abuse". You might as well be saying that a lion has never killed you because you pray to God everyday--there's more than one answer than one's subjective belief.


----------



## 2ndApex (Oct 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> My point is that their "depth" wasn't designed depth, it's just that people cracked the IV/EV system and ruined their original purpose. The game isn't designed to be so stupid, I mean like requiring you to grind a VERY SPECIFIC type of Pokemon for a bunch of values that are absolutely invisible to the game's naked eye is not designed depth. It's breaking the game to try and make it "competitive" and "in depth" when really it's just quite stupid.
> 
> In a TCG the game is designed to be as in depth as it's designed to be. And things that are stupid in the game are fixed. Here they never even attempted to make EVs and IVs their original purpose, they just went "Uh, y-yup that was the depth we designed all along!" It's not, the system was made so that no two Pokemon are the same since no one fights their Pokemon exactly the same.


 

I don't see how intention has to do with how good something actually is.

IV's are about making every Pokemon different, EV's are about your Pokemon reflecting the stats of the Pokemon they beat. I don't see how any of those are "broken", and past the grinding (or through PokeGen/Simulators) you have several deep rapidly evolving metagames.

Same thing with Smash, beyond the developers intention (for Melee at least) you have a super fast MvC/GG level of technical game where you can see the metagame evolve from year to year even after 13 years.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 14, 2013)

2ndApex said:


> I don't see how intention has to do with how good something actually is.
> 
> IV's are about making every Pokemon different, EV's are about your Pokemon reflecting the stats of the Pokemon they beat. I don't see how any of those are "broken", and past the grinding (or through PokeGen/Simulators) you have several deep rapidly evolving metagames.
> 
> Same thing with Smash, beyond the developers intention (for Melee at least) you have a super fast MvC/GG level of technical game where you can see the metagame evolve from year to year even after 13 years.


 

Because the original intention was fun and this is just tedious? It officially made a system that was designed to make things fun and unique just another tedious grind to a game that's already heavily based on tedious grinding.

Also if they wanted to have actual "mechanics" in Melee and not just dumb exploits/glitches they would've brought it back in Brawl. When a real fighting game is made it is made solely for the purpose of being competitive and all the mechanics are intentional and designed around them. If something is exploited or glitched it's patched.


----------



## gamefan5 (Oct 14, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Well my point is that it lost it's original purpose. It was to make every Pokemon different in some way, so that no two were the same and that your Pokemon were unique to you. Pokemon's central theme has always been camaraderie and being able to raise something unique to you. EVs and *IVs* did that. Each experience yielded unique Pokemon. Now that's all gone and it's just another stat that needs to be trained.
> 
> In "embracing the competitive" scene it's lost a bit of its own focus: to create an experience tailored to you. I'm just saying it's a really bad trade off and it makes the games feel so... cold and calculating instead of being a warm, personal experience.


 
Believe it or not, everyone did EV training at least once in their lives. They just did unknowingly. Effort values are automatically given once you defeat in pokemon. There just there to improve a certain pokemon to improve stats on a certain aspect. (Whether it wants it be a better attacker or better in defense, or in speed)
In fact, I'm pretty sure that it was discovered when you would beat the same pokemon over and over to lvl up. You would see a certain stat getting a massive increase compared to the others. I'm pretty sure that's EVs were discovered. I see no problem with that. There were also items that helped for EV training as well. It existed, but GF didn't want it to be seen and calculated. X/Y changed all that.

*However, I do agree on one point. The part when u said that pokemon needed to be unique and not "perfect" on each that. It's kind of sad to see that it became such a grinding chore instead of leaving it alone.*
IVs are individual values and they are not meant to be seen, and they are what makes pokemon unique. They are like the genes of pokemon. 
However, just like in real life, genes can be passed down to your offspring. Which then created the whole tampering with IV's to make an ideal pokemon. 

I don't mind traning (EV's to be more precise) because it allows you to train your pkm in order to fill a certain role. However, the sad part is that people want the pokemon to perfectly do that role, going as far as tampering it's IVs or genes.


----------



## YayMii (Oct 14, 2013)

Many changes to Brawl were under the sole intention to close the skill gap between players. Nintendo has stated that Melee was meant to aimed at "hardcore" players, while the shift of the demographic on the Wii pushed them to change the game to fit a more casual playerbase (while SSB4 will be somewhere in the middle as they feel it's not as necessary to accommodate new players this time around). While this doesn't signify the return of techniques involving Melee's physics quirks to SSB4, it does mean that they admitted to changing the mechanics in Brawl to reduce the depth of the gameplay. But I digress.

I understand the reason why one would dislike the manipulation of IVs and natures, since obtaining the desired values of those require hours upon hours of what is essentially genetic engineering (nullifying the meaning of 'individual' in 'individual values'). But EVs are values that reflect how a trainer has trained a Pokemon. They're directly affected by the trainer, so the trainer has full control on what they want to do with them. Ever since Generation III, there has always been ways of vastly speeding up the process (in the form of vitamins and items like the Macho Brace), to the point where one can fully EV-train a Pokemon in about half an hour. It's not as tedious as many people make it out to be.
(and training a Pokemon to lv100 has always been tedious and grindy since the very beginning. Just my two cents)


----------



## gamefan5 (Oct 14, 2013)

YayMii said:


> Many changes to Brawl were under the sole intention to close the skill gap between players. Nintendo has stated that Melee was meant to aimed at "hardcore" players, while the shift of the demographic on the Wii pushed them to change the game to fit a more casual playerbase. While this doesn't signify the return of techniques involving Melee's physics quirks to SSB4, it does mean that they admitted to changing the mechanics in Brawl to reduce the depth of the gameplay. But I digress.
> 
> I understand the reason why one would dislike the manipulation of IVs and natures, since obtaining the desired values of those require hours upon hours of what is essentially genetic engineering (nullifying the meaning of 'individual' in 'individual values')*. But EVs are values that reflect how a trainer has trained a Pokemon. They're directly affected by the trainer, so the trainer has full control on what they want to do with them. Ever since Generation III, there has always been ways of vastly speeding up the process (in the form of vitamins and items like the Macho Brace), to the point where one can fully EV-train a Pokemon in about half an hour. It's not as tedious as many people make it out to be.*
> (and training a Pokemon to lv100 has always been tedious and grindy since the very beginning. Just my two cents)


 
Pretty much that. Hence the word *''effort''*. XD


----------



## joelv6 (Oct 15, 2013)

This is funny how everyone is all worked up about IV's and EV's lol
Back to the topic , i believe it can be casual and competitive


----------



## 2ndApex (Oct 15, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Also if they wanted to have actual "mechanics" in Melee and not just dumb exploits/glitches they would've brought it back in Brawl. When a real fighting game is made it is made solely for the purpose of being competitive and all the mechanics are intentional and designed around them. If something is exploited or glitched it's patched.


 

Brawl was intentionally made to close the skill gap, and does a terrible job with mechanics in general because it rewards defensive play and camping ridiculous amounts.

Once again, intention has nothing to do with execution. Combos in SF2 were originally glitches because of how the game read inputs and let people cancel normals into specials, Capcom embraced them in future updates and now they're a fundamental part of both Street Fighter and many other games in and out of the genre. MvC2 is full of exploits and plays absolutely nothing like what the devs intended, but it ended up being ridiculously technical, became the first game in the Marvel/X-men/crossover series to be a serious event fighting game, had a huge community for a over decade, and it's slowly seeing a revival today because of a few issues in MvC3.

That being said, as far as the Melee metagame has come, all of the fundamental techniques and mechanics (L-Cancelling, Wavedashing, Short Hopping, Fastfalling, directional influence) were put in by Sakurai.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 15, 2013)

I would say it's casual and competitive, and not just for children.

I mean someone like me who doesn't know a thing about the EV crap or bothers with it, can still pick up and play the game, but can still get a hearty challenge out of it because there is some skill involved.


----------



## Clydefrosch (Oct 15, 2013)

Its funny how people argue about IV/EV/Base Stats being hidden adds to the fun. Most people were either completely unaware of that fact, neither adding nor taking from fun, those that were aware and cared have ever since thought that 'the best stats make the best pokemon' and were obviously aiming to get a good one, not that 'my pokemon is special because its different from all the others'. And they've always checked how to get a better pokemon, only that many just didn't want to bother with fighting two pokemon 128 times to max out stats (or the same pokemon about 50 times each with power items).
These now get an easy alternative that, is accessible and easy to comprehend and at least to me, is actually fun. Never since having access to the vs seeker and a trainer with 6 magicarp did I actually thought that EV training is not a huge hassle.

I personally believe it was necessary to at least make EVs easily accessible for everyone to even out the playing fields in online matches (cause those are easier accessed than ever before too) and in tournament plays too. While those that deal with IVs and extensive strategies still have a great advantage, others have a real shot at things now too. and thats a good thing, adding to the fun, not taking away


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

2ndApex said:


> Brawl was intentionally made to close the skill gap, and does a terrible job with mechanics in general because it rewards defensive play and camping ridiculous amounts.
> 
> Once again, intention has nothing to do with execution. Combos in SF2 were originally glitches because of how the game read inputs and let people cancel normals into specials, Capcom embraced them in future updates and now they're a fundamental part of both Street Fighter and many other games in and out of the genre. MvC2 is full of exploits and plays absolutely nothing like what the devs intended, but it ended up being ridiculously technical, became the first game in the Marvel/X-men/crossover series to be a serious event fighting game, had a huge community for a over decade, and it's slowly seeing a revival today because of a few issues in MvC3.
> 
> That being said, as far as the Melee metagame has come, all of the fundamental techniques and mechanics (L-Cancelling, Wavedashing, Short Hopping, Fastfalling, directional influence) were put in by Sakurai.


 

>"Mechanics"
>"Exploits and glitches"

Also there's a difference between a "glitch" that creates shit like combos (the centerpiece of fighting games) and a glitch that completely imbalances a character. Like if a slow moving character can just wavedash why even bother making them slow?

Also "Melee metagame" implying it's not just like 3 characters and everybody else is shit.

Even if you try to hold up Melee as a "competitive game" it's full of shit balancing and dumb exploits.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 15, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> >"Mechanics"
> >"Exploits and glitches"
> 
> Also there's a difference between a "glitch" that creates shit like combos (the centerpiece of fighting games) and a glitch that completely imbalances a character. Like if a slow moving character can just wavedash why even bother making them slow?
> ...


 
Dude, Melee is a competitive game. It's still being used in tournaments and competitions these days. Stop derailing the thread.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Dude, Melee is a competitive game. It's still being used in tournaments and competitions these days. Stop derailing the thread.


 

PASBR was played in tournaments. Let's not forget that.


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 15, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> PASBR was played in tournaments. Let's not forget that.


 
So? The discussion isn't about the game (between you two), it's about Melee, which isn't about the topic anyways.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 15, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> So? The discussion isn't about the game (between you two), it's about Melee, which isn't about the topic anyways.


 

Melee relates to the topic that games like this are ruined by their "competitive" crowd.

(specifically nintendo fans)


----------



## ShadowSoldier (Oct 15, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> Melee relates to the topic that games like this are ruined by their "competitive" crowd.
> 
> (specifically nintendo fans)


 
Really? Because I thought this was about if Pokemon was a casual children's game, or a competitive strategy game. Not if whether or not you think Melee is competitive because it's glitched and exploited.


----------



## Black-Ice (Oct 15, 2013)

Pokemon competitive scene: evolutionary chain of conversation. 100% success rate:

Pokemon competitive scene -> EV/IV's -> EV/IV's arguments -> Links to SSB
The convo always super evolves into Super Smash if the right conditions are met


----------



## YayMii (Oct 15, 2013)

Just to make it clear, I only replied to your SSB comment to refute your whole "lost its original meaning" point. Not to start a discussion why X game sucks because of Y reason.

EDIT: pun unintended  those are supposed to be variables.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Oct 16, 2013)

ShadowSoldier said:


> Really? Because I thought this was about if Pokemon was a casual children's game, or a competitive strategy game. Not if whether or not you think Melee is competitive because it's glitched and exploited.


 

...And I'm evolving (pun half intended) the conversation by bringing up the topic that turning it into "competitive strategy" ruins a lot of its charm and fun.

God forbid we have a dynamic dialogue here.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Oct 20, 2013)

Wombo Combo said:


> Casual stopped playing after middle school just cant get into it anymore.


This describes me perfectly. I stopped playing Pokemon after generation 1, and try as I might, I just can't get into Pokemon again, even the originals. I pick any of them up, play for an hour, and then stop out of pure boredom.


----------



## 2ndApex (Oct 20, 2013)

Guild McCommunist said:


> >"Mechanics"
> >"Exploits and glitches"
> 
> Also there's a difference between a "glitch" that creates shit like combos (the centerpiece of fighting games) and a glitch that completely imbalances a character. Like if a slow moving character can just wavedash why even bother making them slow?
> ...


 

lol Just saw this but where did you get the idea that Melee was an imbalanced game? 8 different character mains placed at top 8 at the last national (Evo) and low/mid tiers frequently place high as well.

Most "exploits" people think of when they think of Melee like wavedashing, L-cancelling, and shorthop+fastfalling were put in by Sakurai. The only characters that get a speed boost from wavedashing over running are Mewtwo and Luigi but they're still not that great :\


----------

