I took it completely seriously, but when you continually deny physics, then there's nothing to be done (comparing a large rock and a bullet...they're completely different; obviously one does more damage that the other, but from a piercing and bludgeoning standpoint, the two cannot be compared so easily). I've done a lot of research on the subjects, and I've been trying to rectify the games for years, now. As I've said, this isn't fact; it can't be, and it's impossible to improve it without scientific data or actual comparisons. All other evidence is, thus, simply theory, and thus it is refutable. The inconsistencies stand, and a lot of things in the games don't make sense; nor will they ever. I do think the series has gotten less mature of the years (sure, the 4th and 5th gen had more mature stories, but despite that, the characters are far more pure in most cases, as are some of the themes), and about half of what I said was theory rather than subjectivity (more or less). And of course I care, I've been playing pokemon since the beginning, which is really why I consider it as based on game logic as it is; I'm not basing on my ideals, no, then I would have been far more subjective with my points and would have gravitated towards grittier, more realistic things, rather than ones based on simply logic, alone. But that's not what pokemon is, now is it? Pokemon does rely on logic, and it may have been impulsive but it certainly acknowledges the fact that it is a game, there's no moving me on that point. It may sound shallow, but most anyone who's played the game can tell that it does. Then again, I guess it really doesn't sound shallow, after all; at least, not to me, not in this case. After all, if it didn't, then magnitude 9 would indeed level cities. If a didn't, a lot of things would most certainly not work, even by some surreal, alternative logic. To truly see pokemon for what it is, we must marry game logic with our logic, it makes little sense, otherwise; and seemingly, that's how GF wanted it. I've based my bullet logic on actual physics, problem is, it's hard to do that with pokemon, as we know very, very little about...really, a lot of it. There's no way to present that a bullet is faster than Extreme Speed as, according to the pokedex, it is simple "incredibly" or "blindingly fast". How fast is that? There's no real way to know, but I'd say that a bullet is also blindingly fast. It's far too vague to definitively say that one is faster than the other; unless, that is, in the games they explain the velocity of the attack and the formula behind which its damage is dealt. It seems more like you're going more off of emotions rather then logic (or logic seduced by emotion), because I felt those words. Yeah, they attacked me and my credibility, stating fact in places where opinion would be as stating conjecture where there should be opinion. Still, I don't really care about that, because you always seem to reinforce flimsy theories of yours with some type of logic later on, whether you actually believe them or not.
Unless, of course, you'd like to prove me wrong on the aforementioned points; because I see nothing wrong with them as long as they stand uncontested. After all, I really don't see how one can prove most of those questions, but I would be happy- no, ecstatic, to see non-theoretical, non-subjective proof that denies the illogical nature of the games, from a surreal standpoint or otherwise. Who knows, maybe I'd like the games more if you did, but to so easily refute all that I said...there must be some pretty solid evidence that I missed. Clearly what I'm saying is so ridiculous, so simple and baseless that it can be easily refuted- no, effortlessly so. I mean, this whole things would all be over then, right? If we have completely irrefutable evidence? Heck, there'd be no cons, I actually encourage that refutal, because I like pokemon. At a time, I loved it; there are bonds with the series that just cannot be broken, so why not just strengthen those weak links? Yes, let's destroy our laws of physics, let's destroy logic as we know it, and immerse ourselves in the surreal world of pokemon, because it is only then that we can truly understand the laws that bind the world from chaos. I'd only be gaining from the destruction of my points. Maybe I'm just a raging fanboy, bawwing stupidly about what I don't understand, maybe my points really are flimsy, then by all means, destroy my "crappy opinions and theories", I'm all eyes.
Or, we could end it right here, and forget all about this, "agree to disagree", as they say. Granted, it's not something I like to do (it leaves a really bitter taste in my mouth), but that's the type of thing you have to deal with in our world of subjectivity. Though, the only reason I'd see that as being necessary is because the trains of "Roleplay Discussion" are being derailed, I'd say this is more fit for general discussion, but if we can tie it in or bring it to a swift end, then I'd say it works.
EDIT: Though, I will say that I do see potential. Pokemon Platinum and BW1 and 2 proved to me that Game Freak is capable of making a more-than-simple story, and N and Cyrus are probably the most complex (and from my POV, the most interesting) characters in the series. I can see Pokemon becoming exponentially better in the future, and they actually care about the gamer that wants more in terms of story. It's not all about the kiddies, though they are the majority of the fanbase (and thus, simplicity is something that absolutely cannot be lost. Saying it's not at all mature would be a little shallow, I'd say, but I would truly love to see the melding of themes presented in Gen 1 as well as those of Gen 5; after all, if Inazuma Eleven, a game about Soccer, could make a mature, and at the same time, lighthearted story that appeals to all ages, than I'm sure the surreal world of pokemon can as well (and in its strife, one might say that it has with BW).
