And I'm saying they don't, because IVs are whatever Game Freak wants them to be. Obviously they aren't genetics on this close of a level because of the introduction of Hyper Training. At any rate, DNA is MUCH more complicated than a series of numbers in a Pokemon game, so that connection is already flawed on its surface.
Yes, IVs can be anything Game Freak wants them to be. That doesn't mean that's what they should be. I can still criticise the system.
So can you explain how you can "reset" and "retrain" EVs and how that applies to the real world? Just curious.
Purely exists for gameplay. You're not curious, you know exactly why.
You're disappointed of the introduction of this feature, because it contradicts what you'd expect that the Pokemon World is based on our world, therefore I'm saying that on that level, you shouldn't, otherwise you're setting yourself up for a lot of disappointment.
No, I'm disappointed primarily because it is homogenising and boring.
We can agree to disagree, here. The fact that you didn't go into specifics on "any number of other methods" implies to me that you don't have an idea for any other methods?
On use item, NPC, ingame events, bottle caps for all I care.
If you have a legitimate criticism about something, that inherently implies (to whatever degree) that by having a concern, you also pose some sort of a conclusion or a solution.
I think you need to adjust your expectations because this isn't how it works. I'm not qualified to make these game design decisions. I can offer suggestions when I have them but I'm not obligated to do anything of the sort while I criticise.
You can cut the accustory tone, though.
No idea what you're talking about. I'm making a point, but you're making it about me. If you don't like my tone you're welcome to stop talking as you keep threatening to, I'm just trying to have a discussion.
Inquistive statement related stuff.
Not sure what you're trying to get at with this anymore. You thought I held certain opinions, turns out I didn't.
Am I wrong? Fallacy fallacy.
Why do you constantly appear to have this "YOU ARE SILENCING MY OPINION I AM ALLOWED TO SHARE IT" perspective? ?_? I don't care that you have an opinion; you're allowed to share it, I'm wondering why you believe what you do. That's pretty much it.
The perspective comes from you saying "GameFreak can do whatever they want" as if it matters. I know they can, I am under no illusion, I'm just making a criticism. If this argument stops, that perspective stops.
I never said that you said that. Read carefully; it was a general statement.
Your post was accusing me of saying that, right? Which I didn't say? Can you be a bit more clear? I obviously don't understand, I don't know why you're dragging this out. I've obviously read it and have no idea what you're talking about.
"I have an opinion and I have the RIGHT to share it and how dare people tell me I'm wrong for having an opinion about a feature in a Pokemon game!"
Are you paraphrasing me? Why would you want to do that? I didn't say this and do not hold this belief, you're making me look bad for no discernible reason other than flame bait or something.
I want to talk about why you feel this feature is unnecessary, not the ethics of having an opinion and accusatory statements.
I'm happy to talk about that, instead I'm being quizzed on inquisitive statements and how I should be expected to give the ideal solution to everything I don't like.
They're based on genetics in concept, but in practice, can be literally meld into anything, as we've seen based on the introduction of Hyper Training.
I know they can, that doesn't mean I should like it when they are. Why is this point still being made? What value does it still hold to the discussion? We're going around in circles, I've made this point many times.
And this detour doesn't bother you? I suppose that's insignificant, but fair point.
Okay, I think you're genuinely misunderstanding me here. It's not so much a hyper-realistic system that I want. What I want is a system that feels unique and interesting. The only thing about IVs that are unique and interesting to me is that they make Pokemon seem more like living things, mirroring a concept like genes. It's obviously much simpler and has certain changes for gameplay purposes, but it's fine because it's still a unique feature which has some level of depth. When it's homogenised to the point where it's just EVs under another name, there's nothing to like.
It's cool and all they're opening the doors to more players, but what about this is fun gameplay? Is there not a better way to do this? What purpose do IVs even serve as a mechanic anymore? Wouldn't it be better to scrap them and make EVs as fun as possible by changing them up?
Irrelevant tangent, really.
It's very relevant. You keep bringing the point up and it adds nothing. I know, Game Freak can do whatever they want. Criticisms against those decisions are still valid.
Less accustory tone, please.
You know, I'm trying damn hard to calm down, and to be fair, you're not really practicing what you preach here. I wasn't trying to be accusatory, I was trying to make a valid point and you shutting it down with this ad hominem nonsense is rather grating on my patience. I'm trying to be polite now.
Those were your issues with it, of which I'm very well aware of, not proposing any actual solutions/changes, but whatever. Not importnat.
Yes, not important. You told me I hadn't made my opinion clear enough until after you had posted. I just pointed out where I had made it clear.
Your posts are evidence enough, but you're going to say I'm wrong anyway, so...
Yes, I am going to say you're wrong because you aren't backing up your arguments at all. You're being very uncooperative.
Inquisitve statements don't have to have a question mark, the question is implied. I assume you don't know this?
It seems you've tried very hard to be as vague as possible with your 'inquisitive statements'. If you didn't understand my view, you could have asked what my view is. Your first response to me was a criticism. A criticism of an argument you now admit to not understanding. See the problem?
And I wasn't meaning to be condescending, but at any rate, you're being needlessly accusatory and rude, so please cut that out, thanks.
It's okay if you do it because you don't mean it?
There is something rather rude and thus ironic about "please cut that out, thanks". I'm not trying to be rude. I'm sorry if my tone bothers you. Stop bringing it up, we can end this much more amicably if you just debate my points. That's just who I am and it is not intentional. You, on the other hand, are just being snide now. "Cut that out". How old am I now?
---
Not going to bother answering the rest of your flamebait. I only asked what your issues were in specific and was curious to see if you would have anything in mind to change it with. If you continue to act hostile to me, then I will drop this and not even bother to respond to you. I advise you to really calm the increasingly negative rhetoric; it gives the impression where you're really taking what I'm saying really personally when you shouldn't.
I'm just trying to have a discussion, why does this have to turn into a confrontation? I'm not flame baiting you and there's no 'negative rhetoric'. I think you might be the one taking this personally, I don't mean to sound like any of that. I try my best to respond to everything you say fairly.
I think this is the third time you've threatened to stop responding. If it's that bad just do it already. I'm not going to stop because I believe we can have a mature discussion and I'm trying my best. You're the one stopping that with all of this "you're flame baiting if you do it one more time I'm leaving I swear" and "accusatory tone". These are the only things halting this discussion.
I'm not even saying anything negative towards you, you just have a problem with my
tone. This is text on a website, it's rather easy to misinterpet. You're looking to far in. I'm not trying to be accusatory or rude, but you keep telling me I am and that's what's holding the discussion back, I think.
