/v/ - Video Games

>>182049 (OP) 
LAMO DIS NIGGA SAID ANALIZING

>>182053
LOL, why am I laughing at this.

13d7a0a0ed395d588a3b8ddddce82b25aae9e644489b8f6e701120382303824a.png
[Hide] (22.5KB, 99x100) Reverse

>>182053
no bulli

85def07942c76b0268f7059b0e747f0eb7757b4833711a18cc4bb9005beaa017.png
[Hide] (33.6KB, 493x276) Reverse

>>182053

1a687bad1c042aaf9b6a70fb774ee9e55b48dc9a5e06c51e0e69e1a31c9964f2.mp4
[Hide] (311.9KB, 1280x720, 00:01)

>>182053

That's way too much sugar. Lemonade AND a jelly doughnut? Come on now.

d0c946a78fe8ab957843acc6ff45a37e39d6ae2ee6d858965f6bfe7a7e629e6b.png
[Hide] (59KB, 1004x805) Reverse

Gen 1&2 yes, whenever I play newer generations I keep wondering why they added all this bullshit I don't give a shit about.
You technically do have to analize pokemans by catching them to unlock the full pokedex entry but then back in gen 1 you could ask any random kid and he could probably recite all the poketmans types from memory.

This is a very strange thread. Pokemon didn't really tell you what types were effective against which until recently, unless we're talking about material outside of the games themselves. Sure, it's mostly intuitive but in SMT you could explicitly see what an enemy's weakness was YEARS before Pokemon implemented a similar feature when they jumped to 3D. You literally had to guess in Pokemon for most of the series.

bnb_laugh.gif
[Hide] (385.6KB, 320x240) Reverse

>>182053
Uhhh, oh yeah! Analizing! Heheheheh! Heheheh!

>>182114
I remember there was a school in one of the first towns in Yellow or Gold where you read type efficiency written on a chalkboard.

>>182114
>had to guess
That was part of the fun

pokes.jpg
[Hide] (209.6KB, 1334x670) Reverse

>>182114
All that shit was in the game's manual.

2013-10-28.jpg
[Hide] (103.1KB, 416x509) Reverse

>>182114
>>182389
>>182394
Type effectiveness is one of the least obtuse mechanics in the game. Like how the fuck is anybody supposed to figure out that beating a certain pokemon awards + 1/1000 attack the next time you level up. The closest that the game gets to telling you about EVs is when it tells you that pokemon raised by trainers are stronger than wild pokemon. also BTW theres a limit on how many you can get but we wont tell you when you hit it or anything lol. Like there is figuring it out yourself and then there is having to set sail for autism to figure out EVs or IVs or any of the other bullshit that the games do literally nothing to tell you a damn thing about.

>>182407
>Like how the fuck is anybody supposed to figure out that beating a certain pokemon awards + 1/1000 attack the next time you level up
I don't think you are supposed to figure it out. It's supposed to simulate developing a bond with your pokemon making them stronger.

>>182407
And IVs are supposed to simulate genetic differences between even the same kind of pokemon. It's the autists who decided that these small touches to make pokemon more alive and unique needed to be figured out in the first place, when they are best obscured.

>>182407
Who cares about EVs and IVs other than autistic tourneyfags?

72c541f28de3a8b1939b9413e902e7f9dd93397f40e858af31a8e8911aa38457.jpg
[Hide] (11.8KB, 521x455) Reverse

>>182049 (OP) 
Pokemon is for kids. Real life animal lore beats fantasy animals.

>>182049 (OP) 
It feels kind of stupid to praise a game series for having such a fundamentally broken underlying system that the only thing that matters is damage per turn and elemental resistances.

>>191418
Sometimes simplicity is better.

>>191419
But my problem is that the simplicity exists in spite of what the developers most likely originally intended the game to be like.

PikachuWon.webm
[Hide] (1.3MB, 1920x1080, 00:05)

>>182049 (OP) 
This is why Pokemon is a popular franchise

>>192515
>soundless webm
go back

>>192515
>pikachu won the ashbowl

>>191519
It’s typical 90s JRPG. FF’s pre-ATB system is basically identical.

>>192516
>say this
>shit gets progressively worse
>hurr

>>192561
Nah. The devs didn't have to spend time programming buffs. They clearly wanted you to use them, even though they're the most useless shit ever ninety percent of the time.

>>182114
>You literally had to guess in Pokemon for most of the series.
But it wasn't too difficult to guess what a mon's type was if you understood the common design patterns within Pokemon such as the color scheme and recognize the creatures they're supposed to based on. Mons that look like some aquatic creature and is colored blue are obviously going to be water-types. Grass, bug, dragon, steel, ghost were all obvious just by looking at the design of the mon itself.