Over-Simplicity: Is it an Issue

Heavenly Spoon

Back???
Advanced Member
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

You've just agreed with me that the game almost solely focusses on kids now, right?

I know this can seem like a good thing. Teaching kids the game was kind of hard during the ex era, I speak from experience. But reducing overall complexity is not the way to solve this. What that essentially does is make the beginning the end point, meaning kids have no real way of growing with the game and there's no real point in trying to dig deeper. A far better way of dealing with initial complexity is something explained in another Magic article (the fun thing about Magic is that the developers are really open about the design process, and I sort of read Magic articles as a hobby): New World Order. To very quickly summarise, what the article explains is the strategy MtG came up with to keep the game complexity high enough for the more experienced players, while at the same time making the game as easy to learn as possible for new players. The solution was to scale complexity with rarity. Rare cards are allowed to do very weird and complex things, while common cards have to be as simple as possible. This is why I referred to fully-evolved e-cards in my original post, because the NFE basics in e-series are fairy simple, as they should be. That way, if kids buy boosters and/or a starter deck, they won't be overwhelmed by complexity, but once they do learn the game there is a very rich and complex world for them to explore. Pokémon doesn't have that world anymore.

Another fun way to add eventual complexity without adding initial complexity is lenticular design (yes, another Magic article, try and stop me), where you essentially add fairy simple and easy to understand effects which can have very large competitive implications both in terms of synergy and strategy, but only if you understand the game well enough. For example, to a novice player, Crobat SP seems like a pretty nifty Pokémon, with the added fun bonus that when it enters play it does 10 damage to an opponent's Pokémon. Competitive players know the true power of this beast, though, and will rarely play it as a Pokémon but almost solely for this effect. An effect which adds a lot of potential decision making and allows you to build entire decks or engines around it.

A complex game can be easy to learn, but it does require that the designers aren't as lazy or single-minded as the current ones seem to be.
 

Ndless

Aspiring Trainer
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

While those might work for MTG that doesn't mean it will work for this game. They are different games with different audiences, needs, mechanics, and much more. If I wanted to play a game designed like MTG I'd play MTG not this.

The primary goal of a game is to be fun. A game doesn't have to be complex to be fun.
 

Heavenly Spoon

Back???
Advanced Member
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

Ndless said:
While those might work for MTG that doesn't mean it will work for this game. They are different games with different audiences, needs, mechanics, and much more. If I wanted to play a game designed like MTG I'd play MTG not this.
Except MTG is completely different mechanically. The Pokémon TCG is the only TCG of its kind I know of, and one I used to enjoy playing immensely. This isn't about how the game is designed, this is about how the game purposefully and needlessly restricts its target audience.

Ndless said:
The primary goal of a game is to be fun. A game doesn't have to be complex to be fun.
Except it kind of does? It comes back to my first post. I'm sure Timmy finds the current game fun, but that leaves 2 other groups of players out of the mix who can appreciate complexity. This really isn't an argument, though. Fun is as subjective as can be. I don't find the game as it is now fun, and I know increasing complexity would help fix that. Does my fun not matter?

I've been trying to point out how to make the game more fun for the other groups while leaving Timmy's enjoyment pretty much unaffected, I'm not trying to push the Pokémon TCG to become MTG. If you think that's what I'm doing you're missing the point.
 

daviduk2000

Aspiring Trainer
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

Great post i too think of gothitelle FFI as interesting too bad in this format there is zero uses for it.

My favorite deck and most technical decks I used to use was

Mew prime, rhyperior lvl x, delcatty, dialga
Getting energy into your discard pile, the rhyperior into the lost zone and then stacking energy from discard pile to top of deck. To then take it back off with mew using rhyperiors Attack for up to 250 damage was amazingly satisfying.

But I also loved my seviper deck which used a skuntank to poison itself then hit for 110 damage.

Back then everything was more fun and technical. Even the stadiums were a lot more interesting. More special energies, poke bodies and powers for more interesting combos and alternatives. (Though ancient traits is bringing this back in a way)
 

totodile_it_down

Rogue Life
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

Spoon,
I think the real problem is that you're less Johnny than you think. Probably lean a little towards Spike, because you really want to win, but you don't want to do it with the BDIF (which I can relate with). People are still coming up with all kinds of complex and innovative ways to beat the meta game, which is further ranging than it's apparently been in years. I'm sorry your attempts at creative deck building have been unsuccessful, leading you to believe that there's only one way to win in today's game, but there are plenty of people out there that create new and fun combinations every tournament.

It's impossible to argue that the game is as complex as it had been before, but I see that as something to embrace. Build a deck and go to a tournament again. The Masters outnumber the Juniors and Seniors by double, which blows apart your theory that there's no room for a Pokemon player to grow. The "simplicity" of the game makes it welcoming to newcomers, which allows them to stay and want to learn instead of running away from blocks of incomprehensible text. But the simplicity doesn't last for long, because they quickly realize that running every EX they can get their hands on doesn't make for a successful deck.

I'm not sure how old you are or what your life situation is, but take off your thick black rimmed glasses of nostalgia and start studying the cards again. Maybe Johnny will resurface and you'll be ready to start tearing up the tables with something no one has seen before.
 

Jace2012

Aspiring Trainer
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

I feel sorry for the author of that article... he is clearly full of empathy for the current metagame.

I do not prefer nor despise complexity... I simply think that each one has its merits and to learn to adapt to each one is a skill by itself.

Having less complex cards does not mean that the game is easier to play.

For aesthetic reasons though, I prefer cards with large texts, but that will be all!
 

WhoopsyDaisy

Aspiring Trainer
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

The biggest problems with simplicity are the sameyness of the supporters in basically every deck and the lack of variety in deck archetypes. There are so many cards that are just garbage that they're not even fun rogue decks. Really, there are only 10 or so deck archetypes that can win, and even those aren't THAT balanced against each other. If I'm playing Seismitoad and you're playing VirGen, I have to hope my 2 Reshirams come out or I don't stand a chance. But if you're playing Donphan then I basically automatically win.

The "simplicity" that the author talks about isn't even a little bit of a problem though. I would go so far as to say it's a good thing. I'd say that what he calls "simplicity" is what I'd call clarity, and is nothing but a good thing.
 

Jace2012

Aspiring Trainer
Member
RE: Over-Simplicity: Is it an issue?

WhoopsyDaisy said:
The biggest problems with simplicity are the sameyness of the supporters in basically every deck and the lack of variety in deck archetypes. There are so many cards that are just garbage that they're not even fun rogue decks. Really, there are only 10 or so deck archetypes that can win, and even those aren't THAT balanced against each other. If I'm playing Seismitoad and you're playing VirGen, I have to hope my 2 Reshirams come out or I don't stand a chance. But if you're playing Donphan then I basically automatically win.

The "simplicity" that the author talks about isn't even a little bit of a problem though. I would go so far as to say it's a good thing. I'd say that what he calls "simplicity" is what I'd call clarity, and is nothing but a good thing.

I find the existence of 10 different decks (not of the same tier of course) a good thing... I have played popular TCGs with less archetypes in older formats...
 
Top