• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#131
GallantChaddymn posted...
You gonna bother substantiating this at all? Or is your word so sacred it substitutes an actual argument?
Actually explain how it doesn't fit, please. I gave my reasons as to why it does.
This song and dance is getting old.

I don't necessarily see how the Water Typings fits Golisopod specifically, even considering its inspiration: personally, I think another Typing (like Poison or Dark, tied partly to Wimpod's capabilities and partly to the implied mischievousness of its tactics, alongside the inherent general ties that those Typing see with Evil Team, which we've already established Golisopod seemed to be at least partly influenced by with its tie to Guzma) or even just the Single Type couldn't have represented/served Golisopod better; this isn't a huge point, though, and why I didn't elongate on it in the first place, as it is more a case of "why does the Water Typing exactly fit?".
I've already explained my stance about Guzma above, and I apparently will have to re-explain it below, so..

With different I obviously meant that Golisopod could have had taken a completely different stance to "still being a coward inside" or, with delivered better I meant a different Ability that perhaps didn't have the same exact effect of Wimpod's and instead consisted in delivering the message in another way, considering the theme of "I'm now a big buff, but I'm still have fears inside of me"; something that works similarly to Defeatist, perhaps, signifying that the mon looks strong on first impression (heh), but actually doesn't hold up to scrutiny (when the battle prolongues itself).

But, again, I'm not saying this is a complete mistake (just that it ends up being hindering for the Pokémon in a way that the positives outweigh the negatives), as it oftentimes, due to its slowness, forces the use of First Impression to actually attack, and it doesn't really offer an option in its activation (of the Ability); it's either a "you manage to attack or get forced out", and at best you have to excessively pick your target when using it, which I don't think is a particularly deep way to influence the experience, but heh.

GallantChaddymn posted...
You utterly misinterpreted what E-exit even is. Again, Just like Golisopod, Guzma was a weak loser that built a big and tough front. He isn't exactly weak either. he's a pretty tough dude, but that insecurity never went away. He's still the same loser he was back then at the end of the day on the inside.
It isn't Golisopod by itself that exemplifies this, but its evolution line as a whole. Wimpod becomes Golisopod but is still just a coward with a front (E-Exit is still just WimpOut but with a "totally tougher im not a coward guys" sounding name to attempt to mask how cowardly the act still is.

Golisopod and E-exit represent the front Wimpod put on even tho it's still the wimp it always was on the inside, which reflects on Guzma to a T.

And again, what I'm saying is that I did not interpret Guzma quite the same way, so I don't think it necessarily fits him to a T. I didn't interpret is as an outright coward, but more of a poser which actually doesn't put any final effort to make a way for himself as soon as he meat his first lost/delusion from another person, for which I actually think Defeatist might be a good enough fit.

GallantChaddymn posted...
....that's litterally whatcha said.
Its right above . In plain as day writing, quoted straight from you.

Didn't I say that it doesn't necessarily fit him completely? Let me check.

"I also don't think Guzma is delivered quite that way, not to the same degree, so having a Pokémon that only has that Ability, even in the HA slot, isn't necessarily fitting the whole way through.[..]. Yeah, nowhere does it say "does not fit him at all", but thanks for proving my point.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#132
GallantChaddymn posted...
....if you respond to a point before i can address the point you believe "debunks mine" how do u even know it is irrefutable?
You don't. You behave that way tho. because you have an ego and believe yourself to be infallible.
The posts you believe "addressed my points" didn't address them at all, and cutting in before i can finish addressing them is the equivalent of declaring yourself the winner and not letting the other person speak.

Either you wait for me to finish or you start being cognisant of the fact that if you interrupt me, you are talking to a past version of myself that hasn't reahced and interacted with or responded to all your supposed counterpoints yet.
The choice is yours.

Ah, so you did get offended and immediately thought of the worse, when I was simply responding to what IMO were not correct counter-points to potentially cut-off the possibility of the same line of thinking potentially carry through future posts of yours (basically, if I already disagreed with a counter-point of yours, I signaled it before you re-use it to focus on that and avoid potentially having to repeat it in the would-be other posts of yours). But, again, it was absolutely not done with the pathetic intent you're trying to spin it, here, and I'm sorry if that caused such a problem. As you can see, I strayed far away from this after those interjections.

It's telling again, though, that your auto-fulfilling prophecy effect keeps going, no matter, again, what I might say.

It's also hilarious that you talk about ego and you don't see this in yourself, particularly because I absolutely do not care about being right for the sake of being right, and I try to use discussions to a way to confront opinions and, if possible, reach as close to the objective truth, where your attitude instead keeps pointing to the opposite approach, which is typical of a personality type you're accusing me of being.

But I'll spare you the psychological analysis and just re-state that me "posting before you're finished" is not in any way an attempt to "cutting you off and.. therefore making it look like I'm right even though it's clear that you didn't address everything yet, including my new responses"? Really, it's more mental the more I think about it, and is again telling that this is the first interpretation you'd run with, and would consider correct just because that was what you thought of.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Again, why does battle-wise matter? Why are we chopping this up into a pie?
This is again, just you moving the goal post.

See above.

GallantChaddymn posted...
This is actually redacted.
There Is about as much risk of doing that as there is with literally anything put in the game, "custom tailored" or not.
Just accept that your assertion if bogus dude.

How? How does constantly putting in new gimmicks for the purpose of being different not virtually run more risk in making something balance-upsetting, rather than working with differences among with what you already have? I'm not saying this is a matter of fact and you should never put new elements in the game (ex. Terrains), all I'm saying is, again, that you don't have to.

GallantChaddymn posted...
I never said it was the only way Talonflame could have stood out. I said that was the way they had to do it in order to justify its typing.
Stop strawmanning my statement. you have had to do it 2 times with this one point alone as is. Just take the L and admit to having been wrong already.

And I'm saying that is absolutely not the way they had to do it, as your analysis does not in any way imply that Talonflame would have been broken if approached any other way.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#133
GallantChaddymn posted...
I never said this! I said they worked because Pidgey's presence allowed room for them to be more loose design wise because they didn't have to fill its mold.

A mold which exists for balancing reasons, of which i layed out precisely. And here you are just saying "nah none of that matters its arbitrary" without so much as attempting to explain what makes it arbitrary.
Its like im discussing the existence of a kid's imaginary friend and ur the kid.

Because how the f*** does that consist in the only way to them being more loose with the design? How exactly was Pidgey's presence the only way to make it balanced, when the in-game as a whole, if anything, is to be taken into consideration? I already went further into my stance when speaking about my example, so hopefully that would tie into this without me having to waste more time and space, but, again, you saying that that way was the only way they could have done it is arbitrary, because Talonflame would have quite simply not broken the game solely on the fact that Pidgey wasn't there.

GallantChaddymn posted...
all you did was say "it doesn't matter as much as you are making it out to matter" repeatedly.
That isn't proof! Thats handwaving!
You actually have convinced yourself that merely relying to a point I made is the equivalent orf presenting a counter argument! It's hysterical!

But that's what you're doing, lmfao! You're arbitrarily saying that it objectively matters because you say it does without actually considering all the other alternatives! Why does it need to be that way? Why is it the only possible way to do it?

GallantChaddymn posted...
How does it not?
Does it excel at its shtick? Yes?
Is it effective? Yes?
Then it has a niche!

...so now we are just moving the goal post because Toxapex proves my point too hard?
gimme a break dude.

You are the one that brought up stat disparity being the way to go, and are now chastising Toxapex for following your own philosophy. Could you make it any more obvious u just have a blatant bias against it?

What? Baneful Bunker and Merciless are not in the slightest sense what make Toxapex excel at it shtick; its lolhuge Defensive Stats, combined with Typing and Regenerator, are, from what I understand, a good Pokémon for Singles. If you wanna argue that the other setup, Merciless, is somehow what Toxapex excels at, even though the other is better, well that's pretty leading, isn't it? Considering so far Toxapex is the only thing with Merciless.

Now, I guess this might have changed since when Toxapex first entered the Singles scene? I'm assuming you're referring to such a change, and, in that case, if true, I'll recede from this Toxapex-niche thing.

Again, the Stats comment was related to your "Toxapex is pretty straightforward, not complicated at all, and why wouldn't you any every Pokémon made like it" to which I responded "well, for starters, the Stats".

This is again, though, you assuming that I'm saying Toxapex is objectively absolutely awful when I didn't: in fact, I clearly stated how I don't think it relies on its gimmick, and I quite like how it was integrated in the games (where instead most others lament how encountering Marenie is tied to SOS Battles, I've always praised that aspect). So, again, this is you taking something from the example I disagree with and taking it as I disagree with the thing as a whole.. Which is what you're also doing with me and the Golisopod thing, so I guess it's not surprising.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#134
GallantChaddymn posted...
I never said "straight forward pokemon is the way to go" holy s*** u can't read.
If you are chastising its "bloated defensive stats" you are only helping my point more that there is too hard of a limit/discrepancy with which we can work with these (even more so than my own forecast on the parameter in fact) to actually manage without more specialization.

I honestly think you don't even know what you are arguing anymore. You are just disagreeing with whatever i said because it involves Toxapex at this point.

Again, I'm not chastising Toxapex! I'm saying that they went overboard with it, IMO, and going overboard is exactly what I don't want them to do, especially every time, which is what apparently your stance is; heck, you claimed Toxapex stemmed in what you think is a good way to make a new Pokémon, and it indeed has custom stuff.. Even though that's not the only element that goes into its viability. The issue here is that, again, you don't see nuance and say "well, if lopsided Stats are wrong, then you consequently have to admit that special cases is the way to go!", which is wrong because there's much more wiggle room than giving something either 40 Defense or 152 and because Toxapex also has custom elements.

GallantChaddymn posted...
see if you actually waited for me to address the point before quoting it here before i got to it, you wouldnt look silly right now.
I already addressed this. every time they had one that deviated, they had it both severely kept in check as well as had a stand in to fulfill the traditional role while the new guy did its own thing. Every single time.
This is a fact.

Hoothoot? Pidgey
Wingull? Taillow, another Normal/Flying Pidgey stand in.
Starly is just Starly, another Normal/Flying Pidgey stand in.
Pidove is just Pidove another Normal/Flying Pidgey stand in.
Fletchling? Pidgey
Pikipek is an example of custom tailored that you argue isn't needed.

So show me exactly where they've "proven they can and have made it work just fine" exactly when I already pointed out how this is false, only for you to just go "none of that stuff is true/matters! because i said it doesn't!" again for the upteenth time?

Hilarious. See, I went ahead and responded to this before your supposed further response because you already stated this was your stance even before laying it out this way, and I already said I disagreed, or that at least you needed to substantiate more beyond "they didn't stand out to me therefore they are objectively Pidgey stand-ins, lul". Why exactly does Pelipper work only because Taillow is there, which you reduced to a Pidgey stand-in only because of the Typing, voluntarily ignoring everything else about it that's different? Starly is an outright better Pidgey, but that has more to do with how absolutely mediocre Pidgey is; how is that different from Pidgey V Doduo or Pidgey V Spearow, which are also pretty much outright better than Pidgey? We've already addressed Talonflame and Pidove. Why exactly does Noctowl work only because Pidgey was also there? Couldn't it have been that the early bird of the game was just met at Night? Couldn't have been paired with another, new bird Pokémon exclusive to the day, which was more different than Pidgey?
What does make Pikipek different when its Signature Move and different stat bias arguably only comes into play when it's fully evolved? Is it perhaps Skill Link, which is a different permutation of an already existing element, rather than creating a custom thing, perhaps?

You're assuming I didn't know what you meant (which is ludicrous) where I instead already jumped ahead because I knew what you meant and already found it wrong, subjective or outright inconclusive, exactly because your stance is absolute.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#135
GallantChaddymn posted...
If you wanna put it that way, go ahead. The intent of the design was to make it remain cowardly even after it became all big and bad because it is still a coward. its like the kid who got bullied and becomes a bully when he gets older. he doesn't stop being an insecure little s*** , he just compensates by bullying others. That's Golisopod. That's Guzma. That's the intent of its design.

And I can agree with that. Again, I'm not saying that that was the only way to deliver such a theme, nor that it is not a burden; but I'm also not saying that every Pokémon needs to be usable in battle to be good (that's actually at times what you seemed to imply with stuff like "is it good at its niche" and the like) (ex. Unown)

GallantChaddymn posted...
how about waiting for me to actually get to your point before responding?

Enough with this s***. I'm saying this not because you haven't responded to my points yet, but because I've already responded to stuff you later claimed I never explained. Therefore my assumption that you ignored what I said, which there's also precedent for in the past, tbh.

I again point out that trying to cut you off to turn the statement around would be an absolutely stupid and confrontational way to approach my discussion, which is not my intent and is mental, given that was is written and the timeline are all clearly there (even though, let's be real, nobody's reading this s***, but still). If by any chance it came out as me accusing you of something that you didn't respond you already, I assure you I must have been referring to something else you already posted in response to me, before, but either way that was not the intent.

GallantChaddymn posted...
where have i done any such thing?

The point i made about the regional birds isn't an opinion.
The point i made about hitting a wall if we keep using gyms isn't an opinion.
The point i made about needing to make pokemon more thought lest they become strong/weaker clones of ones we already have isn't an opinion.
The point i made about pokemon that have more thought put into them are better than ones that don't isn't an opinion.

these are all assertions.

Now, that doesn't automatically make them inherently true. They could be wrong. But to demonstrate that, you have to use logic and reasoning. Not repeatedly say "you're overthinking things".
I provided points to support why i believe these assertions to be true.

if you disagree, you are supposed to bring points that show flaws in the assertion, not pull out the copout machine gun.

The fact that you just slapped a big fat :just your opinion" sticker on all of this tells me you really have no handle on what you are doing.

You did claim that things you said are objective, and that denying them would be stupid. You claimed that some of these assertions were backed up by facts which weren't actually facts (because, again, these are absolutes, you're not even trying to pretend these are tendencies or higher chances or the like) but either considerations of yours which only considered one possibility or outright opinions of yours which you considered facts.

I've already went lengths to explain why I disagree with these assessments/their intensity, but you keep waving them off like, for example, you did with Gyms because "well you said you want them for Gen 8, so it means that you think hitting a wall isn't a problem (where it's actually a matter of how much wiggle room before a change is needed) and I also assume that you prefer them (when I actually stated it, so this was of course pointless) just to make you look biased even though this has nothing to do with it, lul".
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#136
GallantChaddymn posted...
no you didn't. if you did, you would not have responded with regards to combat power in the first place.
Why are you lying?

?? Addressed this before.

GallantChaddymn posted...
except the negatives only exist in your head due to a personal bad experience.

Again with this garbage, lmfao. I knew what I was getting into with Golisopod and no amount of personal bad experience would actually change what I think (or assess, if you prefer) is a hindering Ability and the effect it has on gameplay. I went above on how I think the positives do not outweigh the negatives, but:
GallantChaddymn posted...
a Pokemon's existence is not measured solely by the efficiency of it when used by the player. [..].

I'm not saying how battle efficiency determines how actually good a Pokémon is or not; quite the opposite. I was simply stating how IMO there were better, or if you don't believe better rather different, ways to deliver the concept without also making it more of a hindrance, but that is not to say that making it a hindrance is inherently a bad thing (ex. Unown); even then, yes, possibly them laying out the concept this way lead to a burden to use (so technically them not doing it would have resulted in a non-burden), but that was not to mean that they should never do it! The important thing is that they don't do it that way for every Pokémon, lol.

GallantChaddymn posted...
What makes it vague and or arbitrary?
I'm gonna keep doing this every time u handwave a point.
You think its vague and arbitrary? fine. Explain why.

Because why exactly is it bad for them to take inspiration from the real world and then go from there? Why exactly does that automatically mean them making every new Pokémon a clone of what was there before, where instead I simply used that as the jumping point for "yes, they likely should keep doing some of the tropes most if not every time, the important thing is how well they work in the game and then how to make them different enough (not necessarily via special case/custom stuff)"? How exactly does you claiming that you think every Normal/Flying is a Pidgey clone through and through and seemingly therefore does not have merits (aside from when Pidgey was there) and then claiming all of that is a fact and dismissing the approach as a whole, where instead it might be simply an issue of how they applied the approach, even assuming it was the issue, and then automatically dismissing every other possibility you seemingly didn't really consider?

I don't think it would have broke the game or not made it stand out enough to have Talonflame without Pidgey (and every other bird besides Pidove, IIRC); I don't think the only way to make Hoothoot worth it was to have Pidgey alongside it in the game (not that I disagree with what they've done, but refer to what I said in a previous post). That's what I have a problem with. Substantiate how that was the only way, because it's the absolute statement I have a problem with, not the reasoning in general.
Same with Diggersby: was there any need to have all of the early rodents in the game, some of which arguably misplaced, IIRC, to make it work? To make it stand-out? Compared to other in-game experiences, and even the franchise in general, weren't the new Typing (which interacts in different ways with the Starter Types, btw) and different Abilities enough to make it different? To make it stand out? Without any need for a custom thing - which it does have, but pretty much never comes into play in-game, considering, among other things, that it's a Heart Scale Move and that it is only useful for the player in a format not overly common in-game? Or, if you prefer, do you think Rototiller was a key component in making it stand out?
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#137
GallantChaddymn posted...
I never said it was. i said it isn't an argument to use to say it should actually be more like that because "that's how it is in the real world. Everything in all of fiction is rooted in an observable concept of reality. everything. That doesn't mean we have to restrict it to reality, nor does it make for an even semi solid argument against something that isn't true to reality.

saying "well it would actually make less sense if they were more different because boards irl aren't that different " is utterly stupid, because the same can be said for a large array of animals of which we have plenty of pokemon of, many of which ARE vastly different from each other. There is no real reason we should limit it to reflect reality. The assertion is therefore an appeal to reality fallacy.

But that's not what I'm saying: I'm saying that them keep using tropes and don't straying too far off from the experience with them is actually rooted in reality, not that they have to do it, but I don't think it's an outright fallacy; that same fallacy I know very well, but I really don't think it applies, here, because I'm not saying "they need to keep using early game birds because like reality" or "they need to make them /Normal because like reality"; heck, if anything, this time, I'm on the side of "they could stray off the path more even though it then technically resembles less reality, as it serves to create variability and variety in gameplay".

Again, what we disagree about is the exact way to go about this variability, not the message as a whole.

GallantChaddymn posted...
it only is because you say it is.
what is it even a slippery slope to?
literally the opposite.
Already explained why.

As I said, I'm not saying making special cases automatically implies power creep: I'm saying that keep having to make special cases mathematically increases the chances of creating something that risks being too good for the sake of making it different and stand out compared from what was there before (ex. Araquanid's Ability having its own unique effect compared to basically to other Abilities which instead exist on their own, and are therefore factually inferior); Araquanid could have been different from other Water Veil Pokémon, say Floatzel or Wailord, by virtue of having widely different Stats, a different Typing, different Movepool while still having Water Veil (obviously its Stats were at least in part conditioned by its Ability, so a bit of re-balancing would be needed, but hopefully you get the point).

Was Water Bubble needed to make it different? No. Would it have been the same as Surskit without it? No. Was it a way to differentiate it? Yes. Was it the only way? Hell no. Does it technically power creep other pre-existing elements? Hell yes. Do they need to make such a thing for every new Pokémon? Hell no, and, the more they do it, the more they're likely to creatively run into making something that's just Water Bubble to Water Veil, is what I mean.

I never said that playing around with Stats and etc. does not cause power creep, obviously. Heck, though, considering how you minimize my approach, "slightly modifying/moving around a Stat or two" does not necessarily have the same impact, power creep-wise. From that POV, the point you made about Toxapex's Stats being to me inflated indicating power creep is more pertinent, but again there's mathematically much wiggle room between 40 and 152, and claiming otherwise is quite simply ignoring math.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#138
GallantChaddymn posted...
baeless assertion. The foundation of the concept thus fas has and still is to add cohesion between the elements of the pokemon. it's literally the point and why it is "specialised and custom"

But wouldn't every Pokémon having a custom something make them feel less cohesive as a whole? Especially arguably when it's only necessary for them to be different enough with the elements that constitute them for the in-games they're in, rather than each having to stand out in the franchise as a whole (which again would therefore imply that no one would actually stand out)? Again, though, the franchise vs in-game approach is another aspect where we disagree on, so I don't think we're gonna reach a resolution, here.

GallantChaddymn posted...
again, i have ignored no such thing.
for starters, again, you chose to jump on me multiple times before i even get to those points to properly address them. I'm not gonna repeat myself on this.
2nd, each time you did, you just did what you did here. say "nah its not a problem" and leave it at that.
again, ive addressed these multiple times leading up to this point now, Yes it is, and each example you gave of it "having been done already" had elements to keep it in check by effectively limiting the concept as well as providing a standin. the only time neither was necessary was in gen 7 with the custom/specialisation you deem not necessary. It isn't a coincidence.

i have not this entire time not grasped your stance. You are of the stance that it isn't strictly necessary, not that it has no place in the games. again, I DO GET THAT. What you fail to understand is my position is that it is necessary.

There. Finished responding.
You can go now. I think you'll come to see i did not ignore jack s***.

Already addressed all of these "not actually ignoring", "you want clones", "you claim I don't understand you but it's actually the opposite" "you cut me off because you don't have response lul" etc., so I think this doesn't need any further posting, but, heh, correct me if (you think) I'm wrong.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: otischugach

otischugach
1 month ago#139
That Junichi Masuda goes nowhere near its development.
"That beautiful form so long resting at peace within the azure sea!" - Archie

User Info: Ohmygosh_Josh

Ohmygosh_Josh
4 weeks ago#140
Or maybe make your adventure a CYOA, I only just thought of this recently, and I like this idea.

You could end up a Gym Leader, Elite Four, more of your character acting as a champion like in SUMO. Or chef, breeder, whatever.

Don't know how it would work, I just like the idea of it.
"Everyone is here!" Yeah, everyone except Isaac, Geno, Shadow, Dixie, Sub-Zero and Scorpion.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?
  • Topic Archived