Anybody embarrassed to play Pokemon, or buy a DS/Wii?

dude

its a psychological trait to be insecure and to care about what others think, lots of people suffer that, there's no need to come giving yourself an air of superiority cause you play anything you want 

dude

its a psychological trait to be insecure and to care about what others think, lots of people suffer that, there's no need to come giving yourself an air of superiority cause you play anything you want

Gears360

That isn't my main message. It's for others to join me up there.

Arrogance reels in adopters and that's what I was going for. I don't think it's right for people to ignore games due to the idea that they may be childish. It's not me saying I'm better than others, it's me showing it's easy to get rid of this insecurity. 

You want something intellectually stimulating? Read a book. Not saying video games should or should not be, but you will always work that brain of yours more by reading a book. Read in an EGM article that there isn't much brain activity going on while playing video games. 

You know this is quite an interesting response. "Read a book?"  Why?  I love video games -- I love actively participating in a form of entertainment.   I never knew there was something about a medium of entertainment that origionally made it inclined to cater to only a specific range of emotions and entertainment levels.  If you posit such a value you on gaming, I feel obligated to feel a slight bit of sympathy for you.  I think games have proven that they can be so much greater than childish toys.  I doubt that your assumptions on brain activity are true in most cases -- I can't begin to wager how many thoughts race through my mind when I'm playing a game that encourages both active thought and reflective interpretation of text.

The industry is conditioning us to think solely as "gaming as toy" for this very reason -- producing shallow games is cheap and they typically sell well once your main demographic's standards have been lowered.

I would actually argue that Pokemon, past its childish conception, actually contains gameplay elements that are fairly complex and demanding in nature.  If you're telling me to "read a book," you might as well tell Pokemon fans to "read a book."

Pokemon is a book, but it is a book designed around the demands of children and entirely juvenile in conception.  If Pokemon was reduced to ANY other entertainment medium, how would you regard it?  Can you honestly tell me, "darn it Panda, that first Pokemon movie was some hardcore adult stuff that I viewed right after Kill Bill 2."

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games.   Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment.  While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games.  Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon.  Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws).  Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons.  This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value.  For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

[QUOTE="Tungsten88"][QUOTE="ArisShadows"]

I am 22 years of age, I been playing Pokemon since the Blue/Red Editions. I own a Wii. Some of favorite past games were Pikmin and Animal Crossing. I watch Yugioh, I also play the card game as well as magic. My favorite pokemon is Wobbufett. Lets see. I also play Dungeon and Dragons. Call me what you like; geek, nerd, or nothing at all, I do what I like, I play what I like, even if it "claimed childish" Pokemon games. Like me, hate me, I going to do what I want, and hope you do what you want. To answer the-very-best, no I am not embarrass and I'm not my former self long ago, I will openly state what I like.

ArisShadows

It's like poetry....

Oh ya I write poetry as well..

Hey, quit hogging your horn. Others might want to toot it as well.  

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

FoamingPanda

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games. Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment. While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games. Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon. Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws). Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons. This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value. For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

 

 

i don't think it's to compare Pokemon with clifford the big red dog or rainbow bright...

you see games like pokemon, mario, hell even fire emblem i compare to The Lion King or Spirited Away

you see, little movies that are obviosly not aimed at me. but with stories, animation, and characters, that are just plain memorable.

now what i'm trying to say is that quality is subjective. what is a quality game for you. maybe just a piece of crap to another person.

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on that.

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on that

I would disagree with the statement that places a game like Pokemon on the same tier as Spirited Away or the Lion King.  The games simply lack the depth, character development, and strong presentation.

And a response to the portion you quoted,

This is what troubles me about video games.  Like every other entertainment medium, games should exist, function, and be motivated solely within themselves.  But games are very much the product of consumer demand that dictates that games can't physically be a great work on a higher level (which is entirely not true).  The fact that gamers can't make arbitrary distinctions on the most basic levels of intellectual quality of ideas in the game is one of the many reasons that we have not, and will most likely never, see video games evolve into something better.

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on thatFoamingPanda

I would disagree with the statement that places a game like Pokemon on the same tier as Spirited Away or the Lion King. The games simply lack the depth, character development, and strong presentation.

And a response to the portion you quoted,

This is what troubles me about video games. Like every other entertainment medium, games should exist, function, and be motivated solely within themselves. But games are very much the product of consumer demand that dictates that games can't physically be a great work on a higher level (which is entirely not true). The fact that gamers can't make arbitrary distinctions on the most basic levels of intellectual quality of ideas in the game is one of the many reasons that we have not, and will most likely never, see video games evolve into something better.

Kay wait, hold up.

Go back.

WAY BACK.

Why do human being play "games" in general?

Answer: For the simulation. Competition. FUN.

Now, why would a person read a novel? 

Answer: For the story.

You are comparing two very different things, in a very close minded way.  

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

mushroomscout89

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games. Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment. While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games. Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon. Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws). Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons. This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value. For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

 

 

Aren't you the same guy who basically called Wii "kiddy" and "childish" but disguised those words with a bunch of intellectual non-truths about Nintendo to make yourself look smart?

HOLD YOUr TONGUE.

Haven't you learned not to trifle with the powers beheld within the "forum intellectual?!" You know. That guy who doesn't have any differing or interesting opinions but will do his best to hide it with jargon the likes of which most 13 year olds would be intimidated by?

Seriously. I could have just saved your life.

lol..this is why I come to System Wars.. 

Pokemon is a book, but it is a book designed around the demands of children and entirely juvenile in conception. If Pokemon was reduced to ANY other entertainment medium, how would you regard it? Can you honestly tell me, "darn it Panda, that first Pokemon movie was some hardcore adult stuff that I viewed right after Kill Bill 2."

FoamingPanda

But Kill Bill 2 sucked Panda, especially after seeing the first one.

If games were like Movies, the Gaming Media would actually be reviewing them correctly, but thus, games are not movies, nor books, they are games, and would make horrible shows and movies (Super Mario Bros anyone?) while still being fun to play. Would the Mona Lisa make a good movie? The Raven - a good daytime television series? Would a Documentary done in the surreal-art style work well?

The standards for one media =/= the standards for another, and drawing lines that don't exist isn't helping you're argument any. 

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on thatFoamingPanda

I would disagree with the statement that places a game like Pokemon on the same tier as Spirited Away or the Lion King. The games simply lack the depth, character development, and strong presentation.

And a response to the portion you quoted,

This is what troubles me about video games. Like every other entertainment medium, games should exist, function, and be motivated solely within themselves. But games are very much the product of consumer demand that dictates that games can't physically be a great work on a higher level (which is entirely not true). The fact that gamers can't make arbitrary distinctions on the most basic levels of intellectual quality of ideas in the game is one of the many reasons that we have not, and will most likely never, see video games evolve into something better.

Lol i know it was very far dumb of me to compare pokemon with lion king and spirited away but imo i think your comparison were more exagerated...

anyway i agree with video games could be so much more.... if it wasn't for consumers demand.

But still i stand by first post, pokemon it's a great game (note: game) and it should be played or at least tried by as much people as possible. without feeling shame

i don't play pokemon still if i did i wouldn't give a damn what other people thought as long as it entertains me.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on thatmushroomscout89

I would disagree with the statement that places a game like Pokemon on the same tier as Spirited Away or the Lion King. The games simply lack the depth, character development, and strong presentation.

And a response to the portion you quoted,

This is what troubles me about video games. Like every other entertainment medium, games should exist, function, and be motivated solely within themselves. But games are very much the product of consumer demand that dictates that games can't physically be a great work on a higher level (which is entirely not true). The fact that gamers can't make arbitrary distinctions on the most basic levels of intellectual quality of ideas in the game is one of the many reasons that we have not, and will most likely never, see video games evolve into something better.

Kay wait, hold up.

Go back.

WAY BACK.

Why do human being play "games" in general?

Answer: For the simulation. Competition. FUN.

Now, why would a person read a novel? 

Answer: For the story.

You are comparing two very different things, in a very close minded way.  

Once again, I hate to bring this sick and fundamentally disturbing question up to the light -- "What makes gaming origionally different than any other entertament medium?" 

The answer?  Nothing.

Why do you posit exclusive values on a medium of entertainment -- when its true function is simply providing entertainment, in some form?  Can games NOT create entertainment through complex and witty stories? 

Yet, when you admit that games can, why do you give pause and deny the importance of a story as a tool -- and attempt to debunk and devalue some of the most basic and universal standards used to gauge the quality of ideas that inspire a story, film, or game in the context of gaming?

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Pokemon is a book, but it is a book designed around the demands of children and entirely juvenile in conception. If Pokemon was reduced to ANY other entertainment medium, how would you regard it? Can you honestly tell me, "darn it Panda, that first Pokemon movie was some hardcore adult stuff that I viewed right after Kill Bill 2."

NECR0CHILD313

But Kill Bill 2 sucked Panda, especially after seeing the first one.

If games were like Movies, the Gaming Media would actually be reviewing them correctly, but thus, games are not movies, nor books, they are games, and would make horrible shows and movies (Super Mario Bros anyone?) while still being fun to play. Would the Mona Lisa make a good movie? The Raven - a good daytime television series? Would a Documentary done in the surreal-art style work well?

The standards for one media =/= the standards for another, and drawing lines that don't exist isn't helping you're argument any.

Here are some lines that I drew.

[QUOTE="mushroomscout89"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

PS: i don't think it's fairto compare movies like Citizen kane and Gone with the Wind with video games

cause obviosly video games in general aren't in that level.

hell i bet we both can agree on thatFoamingPanda

I would disagree with the statement that places a game like Pokemon on the same tier as Spirited Away or the Lion King. The games simply lack the depth, character development, and strong presentation.

And a response to the portion you quoted,

This is what troubles me about video games. Like every other entertainment medium, games should exist, function, and be motivated solely within themselves. But games are very much the product of consumer demand that dictates that games can't physically be a great work on a higher level (which is entirely not true). The fact that gamers can't make arbitrary distinctions on the most basic levels of intellectual quality of ideas in the game is one of the many reasons that we have not, and will most likely never, see video games evolve into something better.

Kay wait, hold up.

Go back.

WAY BACK.

Why do human being play "games" in general?

Answer: For the simulation. Competition. FUN.

Now, why would a person read a novel?

Answer: For the story.

You are comparing two very different things, in a very close minded way.

Once again, I hate to bring this sick and fundamentally disturbing question up to the light -- "What makes gaming origionally different than any other entertament medium?"

The answer? Nothing.

Why do you posit exclusive values on a medium of entertainment -- when its true function is simply providing entertainment, in some form? Can games NOT create entertainment through complex and witty stories?

Yet, when you admit that games can, why do you give pause and deny the importance of a story as a tool -- and attempt to debunk and devalue some of the most basic and universal standards used to gauge the quality of ideas that inspire a story, film, or game in the context of gaming?

I tilt my joystick to the left.

My character goes to the left.

Now... lets try this same experiment with a book.

*Tilts book to the left*

HOLY CRAP, HARRY POTTER JUST TOOK A LEFT TURN!

I've tried to convince my girlfriend but she said no to Pokemon for me. :(iunderstand

Apperantly she does not lyk mudkipz.

Why are you with this woman?  

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

Pokemon is a book, but it is a book designed around the demands of children and entirely juvenile in conception. If Pokemon was reduced to ANY other entertainment medium, how would you regard it? Can you honestly tell me, "darn it Panda, that first Pokemon movie was some hardcore adult stuff that I viewed right after Kill Bill 2."

NECR0CHILD313

But Kill Bill 2 sucked Panda, especially after seeing the first one.

If games were like Movies, the Gaming Media would actually be reviewing them correctly, but thus, games are not movies, nor books, they are games, and would make horrible shows and movies (Super Mario Bros anyone?) while still being fun to play. Would the Mona Lisa make a good movie? The Raven - a good daytime television series? Would a Documentary done in the surreal-art style work well?

The standards for one media =/= the standards for another, and drawing lines that don't exist isn't helping you're argument any. 

It seems like someone took a quote well out of context.  Physically?  Absolutely.  Conceptually?  They're all the same.  Each is an outlet for the expression of ideas that greatly vary in depth, meaning, and quality.  The inspiration behind these ideas can vary, but the ideas and their free expression remains intact (at least in its most ideal and pure form).  

People create artifical barriers concerning the function and applicability of gaming to strictly support an industry that has aggressively biased, conditioned, and influenced consumers to evaluate games by the most narrow, cost-effective, and lowest standards concievable. 

People construct the artifical standard of "gameplay as fun ONLY" when they value things like a good story and setting in a game; yet, they refuse to critically consider the value and importance of non-gameplay oriented aspects -- as if they were some sort of foriegn idea that gaming has no relevance to.  Mediocrity and childish products come revered as the height of quality when such a value system comes to dominate an industry.

"The story and ideas within the game lack depth and meaning -- it amounts to little more than a child's play thing.  Why are you entertained by this."

"GAMES R NOT ABOUT STORY.  ITZ GAMEPLAY& FUN."

"But doesn't the setting, stories, ideas, or characters contextualize, justify, and explain the gameplay and have a direct relationship with the gameplay and fun?"

Unless you're willing to take my ideas with a grain of salt, you're left with one response:

"NO, PRESSING BUTTONS ARE FUN."

If so, enjoy pressing buttons.  We might as well strip the game of its shallow and terrible mythos and let gamers play with variables and gemoetric shapes. 

This might explain what the OP feels somewhat offended when people call the object of his intrests childish. 

hahaha i love the "everybody against foaming panda" threads...

i specialy like this one, since i'm a participant.

but still.. panda you raise some good points that i agree, too bad they dont come out well thanks to your pseudo-intellectual rambling.

Oscar-Wilde

Pandas are in fact: Soft, fluffly, and slightly tubby. They spend their days sitting and eatting chutes of bamboo and starring in collection of pun books.

If you get that joke, then frankly you are... well. I'm at a pre-lost for words.  

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

FoamingPanda

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games.   Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment.  While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games.  Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon.  Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws).  Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons.  This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value.  For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

 

 

You can't measure value.  Value of objects varies from person to person.  A child may hold the same amount of value for Sesame Street as an adult would for Citizen Kane. 

Intellectual standards have nothing to do with value.  I value my expensive stereo.  This has absolutely no basis for intellect.

You spelled "qualitative" wrong.  Depth is only measured by the individual.  What you or I may find to have depth, another person may find lacking in depth.  It is all perceived.  If I say the movie "Pi" had depth, that is my perception.  It is not necessarily the truth.  Depth is perceived by each individual in different ways. 

Pokemon games and TES games are completely different from each other.  TES games for some people are boring, while for others are fascinating.  Same with Pokemon.  They both have a perceived amount of depth to them based on what is in the game environment.  The world of Oblivion IMO was vast but empty for the most part.  The same 3 or 4 dungeon designs repeated themselves over and over....and there were over 200 dungeons.  The "mythology" you speak of is a made-up one for the games. 

Pokemon is great for what it is, and most of TES games are great for what they are IMO. 

Once again...You can't define "lower" value and "higher" value.  Like I said, value cannot be measured by any means.  My grandfather gave me an old, dinky looking pocket watch just before he died.  I value that watch.  Someone else could see the same watch and think it was junk.  Value is non-measurable.  However, you have the audacity to call people who play Pokemon "lower value" folk anyway.  You use the word "childish".  You even say "appear fun" instead of just "fun".  Are you saying that people aren't really having fun, but just think they are with these "childish" games? 

Also, you seem to think it is impossible for an individual with a high intellect to enjoy a "childish" type game.  You don't have a clue what you're talking about.   A person can have a high intellectual standard and still enjoy simplistic, child-like games.  

A lot of adults own a Wii and play Wii Sports.  This is a simplistic sports package.  Are you saying that there are no intellectual people who play this?

You say the ideas in Pokemon are so simple that they don't deserve to be valued.  You can't tell people what they choose to value.  It is up to the individual.  

Tetris had simple ideas that became a game.  It is one of the most popular games in the world.  Those "simplistic" ideas were conceived by what many people deem as a genius. 

Many items you take for granted were "simplistic" ideas made into a reality that many people find useful now.  Post-its are "simplistic".  Tic Tac Toe is "simplistic" in nature.  Hop scotch is "simplistic" in its use.  Jumping Jacks. 

Everything I listed was popular at one time or another.  People still use post-its all the time.  Do all these things therefore have a "lower value" in your opinion because of the "simplicity".  That is what you imply in your Pokemon statment. 

You said...."The ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place". 

You display a lot of "intellectual" babble in your words, and obviously think of yourself as a "highly intellectual" individual.  The problem is that the intellectual mish-mash of your words doesn't amount to anything except non-sensical ramblings of someone who believes what he is saying is intelligent, but in reality has no clue what he is talking about. 

[QUOTE="iunderstand"]I've tried to convince my girlfriend but she said no to Pokemon for me. :(mushroomscout89

Apperantly she does not lyk mudkipz.

Why are you with this woman?

She gives great head. 

You know, I love when people directly flame me on threads, but do to the TOS, I'm not allowed to fully fire back with appropriate responses.  Pandas at least try to play by the rules.

Know this.  I'm simply articulating the intellectual justification for the contempt that most adult consumers, like myself, in society have for games like Pokemon and the people who inflate their value.  

This thread resembles "Panda vs. The World" simply because most adult consumers don't care enough to take the time to post on gaming forums, or hold the very concept of gaming in contempt.

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

AvIdGaMeR444

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games. Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment. While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games. Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon. Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws). Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons. This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value. For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

 

 

You can't measure value. Value of objects varies from person to person. A child may hold the same amount of value for Sesame Street as an adult would for Citizen Kane.

Intellectual standards have nothing to do with value. I value my expensive stereo. This has absolutely no basis for intellect.

You spelled "qualitative" wrong. Depth is only measured by the individual. What you or I may find to have depth, another person may find lacking in depth. It is all perceived. If I say the movie "Pi" had depth, that is my perception. It is not necessarily the truth. Depth is perceived by each individual in different ways.

Pokemon games and TES games are completely different from each other. TES games for some people are boring, while for others are fascinating. Same with Pokemon. They both have a perceived amount of depth to them based on what is in the game environment. The world of Oblivion IMO was vast but empty for the most part. The same 3 or 4 dungeon designs repeated themselves over and over....and there were over 200 dungeons. The "mythology" you speak of is a made-up one for the games.

Pokemon is great for what it is, and most of TES games are great for what they are IMO.

Once again...You can't define "lower" value and "higher" value. Like I said, value cannot be measured by any means. My grandfather gave me an old, dinky looking pocket watch just before he died. I value that watch. Someone else could see the same watch and think it was junk. Value is non-measurable. However, you have the audacity to call people who play Pokemon "lower value" folk anyway. You use the word "childish". You even say "appear fun" instead of just "fun". Are you saying that people aren't really having fun, but just think they are with these "childish" games?

Also, you seem to think it is impossible for an individual with a high intellect to enjoy a "childish" type game. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. A person can have a high intellectual standard and still enjoy simplistic, child-like games.

A lot of adults own a Wii and play Wii Sports. This is a simplistic sports package. Are you saying that there are no intellectual people who play this?

You say the ideas in Pokemon are so simple that they don't deserve to be valued. You can't tell people what they choose to value. It is up to the individual.

Tetris had simple ideas that became a game. It is one of the most popular games in the world. Those "simplistic" ideas were conceived by what many people deem as a genius.

Many items you take for granted were "simplistic" ideas made into a reality that many people find useful now. Post-its are "simplistic". Tic Tac Toe is "simplistic" in nature. Hop scotch is "simplistic" in its use. Jumping Jacks.

Everything I listed was popular at one time or another. People still use post-its all the time. Do all these things therefore have a "lower value" in your opinion because of the "simplicity". That is what you imply in your Pokemon statment.

You said...."The ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place".

You display a lot of "intellectual" babble in your words, and obviously think of yourself as a "highly intellectual" individual. The problem is that the intellectual mish-mash of your words doesn't amount to anything except non-sensical ramblings of someone who believes what he is saying is intelligent, but in reality has no clue what he is talking about.

[QUOTE="mushroomscout89"]

[QUOTE="iunderstand"]I've tried to convince my girlfriend but she said no to Pokemon for me. :(iunderstand

Apperantly she does not lyk mudkipz.

Why are you with this woman?

She gives great head.

I ****ing love you.  

[QUOTE="Tungsten88"]

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]I don't buy Pokemon because its blasphomous to the original stories its based off of. Water Margin was beautiful, and Pokemon sullied it. ^^^^ Literary buffVandalvideo

Wait...what? What original stories? I've never heard of this! 

You Gotta be a CHINESE* litterary buff to understand what he's talking about....or someone borned in China.....like me :p!

There are three famous Chinese literrary works (of course there are many others too, but these three are the cream of the top to speak), the first one is the Water Margin, a tale about how 108 outlaws that met together that dole out justice to evil while helping the poor (think of it as the Chinese equivalent of Robin Hood), the second is Dream of the Red Chamber, a romantic tragiedy about two young lovers and the fall of theif family. The third one is Romance of the Three Kindoms, yes THAT Romance of the Three Kindom. The famous Koei RTS game is based right off the series with the same characters and battles. Yea, Sudokin is heavily influenced by the Water Margin. With of course the original Chinese characters replaced by Japanese one.

 NOTE*: Anyone who says these books originated in Japan should get a slap in the face and reread their history. Water Margin and ROTTK happened long before Japan even knew the story. It's much later when Buddism started to going into Japan that Water Margin and ROTTK started to becom popular in Japan. It's so popular to such a point that Japanese consider the stories to be their own and happened to in their history but their not. They happened in China long before Japan even established their feudal system (aka samurai and all that jazz).

if your in high aschool and you play pokemon you should be ashamed.ocdog45

In my high school, I play pokemon with just about everyone I call a friend.

Also on more then one occasion, I've been tackled by a girl flirtaiously. 

Also, on more then one occasion, I've sensually kissed another male just to screw with people. Except no one seemed to care.

I feel so ashamed. 

[QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

AvIdGaMeR444

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games.   Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment.  While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games.  Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon.  Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws).  Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons.  This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value.  For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

 

 

You can't measure value.  Value of objects varies from person to person.  A child may hold the same amount of value for Sesame Street as an adult would for Citizen Kane. 

Intellectual standards have nothing to do with value.  I value my expensive stereo.  This has absolutely no basis for intellect.

You spelled "qualitative" wrong.  Depth is only measured by the individual.  What you or I may find to have depth, another person may find lacking in depth.  It is all perceived.  If I say the movie "Pi" had depth, that is my perception.  It is not necessarily the truth.  Depth is perceived by each individual in different ways. 

Pokemon games and TES games are completely different from each other.  TES games for some people are boring, while for others are fascinating.  Same with Pokemon.  They both have a perceived amount of depth to them based on what is in the game environment.  The world of Oblivion IMO was vast but empty for the most part.  The same 3 or 4 dungeon designs repeated themselves over and over....and there were over 200 dungeons.  The "mythology" you speak of is a made-up one for the games. 

Pokemon is great for what it is, and most of TES games are great for what they are IMO. 

Once again...You can't define "lower" value and "higher" value.  Like I said, value cannot be measured by any means.  My grandfather gave me an old, dinky looking pocket watch just before he died.  I value that watch.  Someone else could see the same watch and think it was junk.  Value is non-measurable.  However, you have the audacity to call people who play Pokemon "lower value" folk anyway.  You use the word "childish".  You even say "appear fun" instead of just "fun".  Are you saying that people aren't really having fun, but just think they are with these "childish" games? 

Also, you seem to think it is impossible for an individual with a high intellect to enjoy a "childish" type game.  You don't have a clue what you're talking about.   A person can have a high intellectual standard and still enjoy simplistic, child-like games.  

A lot of adults own a Wii and play Wii Sports.  This is a simplistic sports package.  Are you saying that there are no intellectual people who play this?

You say the ideas in Pokemon are so simple that they don't deserve to be valued.  You can't tell people what they choose to value.  It is up to the individual.  

Tetris had simple ideas that became a game.  It is one of the most popular games in the world.  Those "simplistic" ideas were conceived by what many people deem as a genius. 

Many items you take for granted were "simplistic" ideas made into a reality that many people find useful now.  Post-its are "simplistic".  Tic Tac Toe is "simplistic" in nature.  Hop scotch is "simplistic" in its use.  Jumping Jacks. 

Everything I listed was popular at one time or another.  People still use post-its all the time.  Do all these things therefore have a "lower value" in your opinion because of the "simplicity".  That is what you imply in your Pokemon statment. 

You said...."The ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place". 

You display a lot of "intellectual" babble in your words, and obviously think of yourself as a "highly intellectual" individual.  The problem is that the intellectual mish-mash of your words doesn't amount to anything except non-sensical ramblings of someone who believes what he is saying is intelligent, but in reality has no clue what he is talking about. 

Ah, gotta love the anti-panda flames.  Try to burn me.  My thick coat is fire resistant.  I suppose when you say more than, "I like X," or "I do not like X," you become subject to all sorts of terrible insults and such.  Go ahead.  The coat is thick.

Ah yes, the one logical counter to my arguement, I knew it was coming --

Absolute qualitative relativity. 

Of course.  We could very well admit that all things have relative value and are subject to vague constructs.  It's logically valid and escapes my critcism quite well.

But, unfortunately, most forms of entertainment and artistic expression can be graded and evaluated within a relatively accurate context.  Hell -- that's the supposed function of this website, and I bet you right now that most gamers can spot a universally bad game (anyone care to make the serious arguement of Big Mother Truckers II as GOTY)?  The vast, overwhelming, majority of people practice the relative (but fairly accurate and standard) ordering of value daily.

I can respect your stance, but observation, common practice, and the vast sum of human opinion argue the contrary.  It is only used in this context because it provides the only reasonable objection to my critcism (which must be made to reject the notion that a game like Pokemon IS of lesser value and childish in its nature), and its utility is generally limited to such.

[QUOTE="AvIdGaMeR444"][QUOTE="FoamingPanda"]

While reading your post i actually agreed with you.

yeah the games are childish.

and maybe not for everybody, but do that makes them worse than, let say...

the elder scrolls games?

no, not really.

it makes them different.

FoamingPanda

No, the lack of certain elements detracts from the net value of the games. Adult context adds an additional layer of intellectual, conceptual, and qualatative depth -- directly -- to almost any form of entertainment. While these works may not provide the highest amounts of immediate pleasure, the over-all value of adult games is substantially greater than that of childish games. Again, reduce a game down to its most bare intellectual warrants and justification -- I think you'll be able to see why someone might be able to call a game like TES "greater" than a game like Pokemon: the quality, depth, and scope of the mythology -- as well as it the factors it takes into account and designs around -- obliterates a world like Pokemon. Contrast these two ideas -- one is a children's book, the other one is a medicore fantasy novel (at best, TES games have plenty of flaws). Does this sound harsh?

Can you honestly tell me that a film like Clifford the Big Red Dog or Rainbow Bright has as much value as Citizen Kane or Gone with the Wind?

We use these intellectual standards in all other entertainment ideas, but forsake them in gaming for strictly commercial and demand-related reasons. This is why people call gaming childish and look down on it with such discrimination and distaste.

Childish games lack the very VALUE that makes them appear "fun" to users with lower value. For individual held to a higher intellectual standard, people who are not children, it seems strange in the eyes of an outside observer to watch an adult take pleasure and find entertainment in a game like Pokemon -- the ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place.

But, as I said, we shouldn't insult or look down on such people... for reasons why, read posts above.

 

 

You can't measure value. Value of objects varies from person to person. A child may hold the same amount of value for Sesame Street as an adult would for Citizen Kane.

Intellectual standards have nothing to do with value. I value my expensive stereo. This has absolutely no basis for intellect.

You spelled "qualitative" wrong. Depth is only measured by the individual. What you or I may find to have depth, another person may find lacking in depth. It is all perceived. If I say the movie "Pi" had depth, that is my perception. It is not necessarily the truth. Depth is perceived by each individual in different ways.

Pokemon games and TES games are completely different from each other. TES games for some people are boring, while for others are fascinating. Same with Pokemon. They both have a perceived amount of depth to them based on what is in the game environment. The world of Oblivion IMO was vast but empty for the most part. The same 3 or 4 dungeon designs repeated themselves over and over....and there were over 200 dungeons. The "mythology" you speak of is a made-up one for the games.

Pokemon is great for what it is, and most of TES games are great for what they are IMO.

Once again...You can't define "lower" value and "higher" value. Like I said, value cannot be measured by any means. My grandfather gave me an old, dinky looking pocket watch just before he died. I value that watch. Someone else could see the same watch and think it was junk. Value is non-measurable. However, you have the audacity to call people who play Pokemon "lower value" folk anyway. You use the word "childish". You even say "appear fun" instead of just "fun". Are you saying that people aren't really having fun, but just think they are with these "childish" games?

Also, you seem to think it is impossible for an individual with a high intellect to enjoy a "childish" type game. You don't have a clue what you're talking about. A person can have a high intellectual standard and still enjoy simplistic, child-like games.

A lot of adults own a Wii and play Wii Sports. This is a simplistic sports package. Are you saying that there are no intellectual people who play this?

You say the ideas in Pokemon are so simple that they don't deserve to be valued. You can't tell people what they choose to value. It is up to the individual.

Tetris had simple ideas that became a game. It is one of the most popular games in the world. Those "simplistic" ideas were conceived by what many people deem as a genius.

Many items you take for granted were "simplistic" ideas made into a reality that many people find useful now. Post-its are "simplistic". Tic Tac Toe is "simplistic" in nature. Hop scotch is "simplistic" in its use. Jumping Jacks.

Everything I listed was popular at one time or another. People still use post-its all the time. Do all these things therefore have a "lower value" in your opinion because of the "simplicity". That is what you imply in your Pokemon statment.

You said...."The ideas are so simple that they don't deserve valuing in the first place".

You display a lot of "intellectual" babble in your words, and obviously think of yourself as a "highly intellectual" individual. The problem is that the intellectual mish-mash of your words doesn't amount to anything except non-sensical ramblings of someone who believes what he is saying is intelligent, but in reality has no clue what he is talking about.

Ah, gotta love the anti-panda flames. Try to burn me. My thick coat is fire resistant. I suppose when you say more than, "I like X," or "I do not like X," you become subject to all sorts of terrible insults and such. Go ahead. The coat is thick.

Ah yes, the one logical counter to my arguement, I knew it was coming --

Absolute qualitative relativity.

Of course. We could very well admit that all things have relative value and are subject to vague constructs. It's logically valid and escapes my critcism quite well.

But, unfortunately, most forms of entertainment and artistic expression can be graded and evaluated within a relatively accurate context. Hell -- that's the supposed function of this website, and I bet you right now that most gamers can spot a universally bad game (anyone care to make the serious arguement of Big Mother Truckers II as GOTY)? The vast, overwhelming, majority of people practice the relative (but fairly accurate and standard) ordering of value daily.

I can respect your stance, but observation, common practice, and the vast sum of human opinion argue the contrary. It is only used in this context because it provides the only reasonable objection to my critcism (which must be made to reject the notion that a game like Pokemon IS of lesser value and childish in its nature), and its utility is generally limited to such.

Here's the post where I point out you deep conceit and arrogance.

Here's the post where you shoot down mine with the claim that: "I'm just another Panda Flamer" Also, you decide to copy and paste more of your bland repeating rhetoric.  

Umm, Wii/DS are kind of popular now a days. Remember those games Brain Age and Nintendogs? Ya...I saw this girl at my job playing with her DS one day. As for the Wii, there was a girl who wanted a Wii to play Wii Sports only. Wii/DS are with the "in crowd" it's okay to play those. 360 and much less the PS3 are not.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Tungsten: Most videos gamers don't read books. Let alone know ancient Chinese mythology. -_- Pokemon was designed as a satire to teach children history.majadamus

I doubt a lot of people in the United States know much about Chinese mythology. As for most video gamers not reading books, where are you getting this information or what poll are you basing this off of?  

I trust most video gamers read books, but Chinese Legends (mythology really is the wrong word for this. The outlaws doesn't have powers or live forever.....)? I don't think so! Most probably think Romance of the Three Kindom is a story thought up by the people at Koei back in the 1990s when the actual events that the game based off of happened more than 1800 years ago at the end of the Han dynatsty in China!!!

[QUOTE="majadamus"]

Umm, Wii/DS are kind of popular now a days. Remember those games Brain Age and Nintendogs? Ya...I saw this girl at my job playing with her DS one day. As for the Wii, there was a girl who wanted a Wii to play Wii Sports only. Wii/DS are with the "in crowd" it's okay to play those. 360 and much less the PS3 are not.

[QUOTE="Vandalvideo"]Tungsten: Most videos gamers don't read books. Let alone know ancient Chinese mythology. -_- Pokemon was designed as a satire to teach children history.StryderK

I doubt a lot of people in the United States know much about Chinese mythology. As for most video gamers not reading books, where are you getting this information or what poll are you basing this off of?

I trust most video gamers read books, but Chinese Legends (mythology really is the wrong word for this. The outlaws doesn't have powers or live forever.....)? I don't think so! Most probably think Romance of the Three Kindom is a story thought up by the people at Koei back in the 1990s when the actual events that the game based off of happened more than 1800 years ago at the end of the Han dynatsty in China!!!

And Tetris thought us that you can defeat communism by droping blocks in correct places until the wall collapses.

HOLD YOUr TONGUE.

Haven't you learned not to trifle with the powers beheld within the "forum intellectual?!" You know. That guy who doesn't have any differing or interesting opinions but will do his best to hide it with jargon the likes of which most 13 year olds would be intimidated by?

Seriously. I could have just saved your life.

mushroomscout89

I love you. 

[QUOTE="mushroomscout89"]

HOLD YOUr TONGUE.

Haven't you learned not to trifle with the powers beheld within the "forum intellectual?!" You know. That guy who doesn't have any differing or interesting opinions but will do his best to hide it with jargon the likes of which most 13 year olds would be intimidated by?

Seriously. I could have just saved your life.

GalvyX99

I love you.

*Writes fanfiction about our love*  

I don't understand the reasoning behind people being afraid to play their DS in public, buy Pokemon, or buy a Wii.

Can someone please explain to me why someone would refrain themselves from fun due to the "idea" that others around them may think they're childish? Why should you care what others think? To me, that's extremely insecure.

I can't believe people are denying themselves from playing Pokemon or their DS in public in this day and age. Like, why would you deny yourself from fun? People have to get over this insecurity and start accepting any type of game in the market if it offers pure fun.

It bothers me a bit because many creative games in the market die out because people are too worried about how others will think when they see that you've bought/played it. 

Anyway, what do you guys think? You embarrassed to play Pokemon/DS/Wii? If yes/no, why? Should we let creativity die out because of our concern of what others will think of us?

the-very-best

I'm 30 years old and I don't give a toss who knows I play Pokemon, or Nintendogs, or whatever other game they think is for kids or girls...

i hate pokemon.  its the most milked franchise ever. its like madden's changes from iteration to iteration.  it comes out every year, the only difference is theres no roster updates 1/2 the time. easily the most milked franchise of all time.Big_T-Mac

ummm....Ok, you are now a fanboy bar none now. I'll admit that Pokemon is one of the most milked franchise but every year? Ok, since The first pokemon came out in 1995, and since you said they come out every year, can you enlighten us and tell us all of them by year? There should be 12 of them cause that's what you said!

I'll be 22 this year. I enjor cartoons (such as Naruto), have a Wii and talk about things i like all the time even if

there is a good chance those around me think differently. You see i realised something and that is even if

someone laughs at you for say playing a DS in public...at the same time they are jealous you have the balls

to do it! :) It's true they mau laugh but secretly respect you for doing what you like regardless of others comments. 

I don't understand the reasoning behind people being afraid to play their DS in public, buy Pokemon, or buy a Wii.

Can someone please explain to me why someone would refrain themselves from fun due to the "idea" that others around them may think they're childish? Why should you care what others think? To me, that's extremely insecure.

I can't believe people are denying themselves from playing Pokemon or their DS in public in this day and age. Like, why would you deny yourself from fun? People have to get over this insecurity and start accepting any type of game in the market if it offers pure fun.

It bothers me a bit because many creative games in the market die out because people are too worried about how others will think when they see that you've bought/played it.

Anyway, what do you guys think? You embarrassed to play Pokemon/DS/Wii? If yes/no, why? Should we let creativity die out because of our concern of what others will think of us?

the-very-best

This leads to an even deeper discussion about the "state" of gaming in today's society - gaming and the image of gaming in the pop culture has these bizarre, outdated connotations in most cultures. You would never hear somebody say that books are for kids, or movies are for kids, or tourist attractions are for kids, or even food is for kids - right? Yet we often hear, see, and sense that gaming is something to be a secret in the professional world and something that you dare do in a public area - you don't want people getting the wrong impression of you.

I taught English in Japanese schools for about 2 years and I really couldn't talk about videogames with my students and most certainly never play a videogame in public. I made the mistake of telling some kids that I liked Final Fantasy games and the word got around to my superior - who immediately told me, "Foreigners are scrutinized heavily here - you shouldn't reveal such childish things about yourself."

Of course, I was pissed off because -

1. My superior had told me on numerous accounts that she enjoyed reading "Slam Dunk", a highschool, drama centric manga made for teenagers.

2. Final Fantasy, albeit its girly-man antics, is a very sophisticated game experience, visual production, musical sensation, and all around klassic franchise.

And then we come to these games like Pokemon and playing a game system in public - maybe in 50 years nobody will care - but in this day in age, if you are caught playing something other than a cellphone game, you are branded as this huge nerd or something. Gaming is viewed as a waste of time, escapism, and money sink in the eyes of those who don't really understand.

I know people who rice up their cars with like $2000 a month - what kind of social stigma is attached to that?

To each his own, of course, and there is the assurance that with each generation, society becomes slightly more aware of what gaming truly is and will evolve to be; entertainment at its finest.

This thread delivers... so much.

Oh, and I play Pokemon, too.

[spoiler] special mention to Avidgamer and mushroomscout for winning the thread imo [/spoiler]

the kids that bring their DS's to my highschool, are the kids that get their heads shoved into toilets.(They play Pokemon!) Sometimes you should just grow up. Its really an age and where you play it thing.Star67