I do genuinely wonder:
When did the TCG start to go downhill? It can’t have been Gen 1, but perhaps Gen 2? After eReader?
Oh the early stages of the TCG were broken beyond believe. Base Set - Rocket trainer cards were all about resource destruction and hand manipulation that in the end the most powerful decks was Haymaker. I didn’t play the TCG between Neo release and late EX/DPt, and after very early BW till SM I also didn’t play. Haven’t played the TCG since Tag Team.
I think the current TCG suffers from terrible game design from the top down. For me it feels like every new era they do the same bogus resource manipulation style deck with Gardevoir, some very heavy toolbox style deck (first with Shaymin, later with Zoroark, no clue what it is now). Not many new strategies are made up by the players with the cards offered in sets. The game designers have a handful of meta-types they want to put in the game and they do so. Differences between decks are limited to playing 3 v 4 copies of one card, or using one different support card. I understand that this very heavy top-down design is done so that all players in all tiers are able to play the same kind of decks and have the same kind of results.
So what’s the difference between Pokemon TCG and the rest in terms of the actual card game?
Why is Magic the best game? (If it is)
i remember leaving pokemon bc gen 2 came out and i thought “these don’t even look like pokemon”.
so glad i don’t have that mindset anymore
3 Likes
I think part of why the Pokemon TCG is “bad” is because each set lacks a theme. Especially in English releases. It’s not brining new mechanics, and if they do (Lost Zone anyone?) they don’t go through with it. It’s one set and done. Having the Lost Zone mechanic in the TCG as a permanent feature next to EX/GX/TagTeam would have added another layer. As I pointed out, Pokemon is a very much top-down designed game. The development team thought out a certain card interaction which results in everybody playing some variation of the same deck. Pokemon having to nerf the whole rule set on use of Supporter cards 2(?) years ago just to prevent a big chunk of decks winning first turn shows the TCG is flawed.
Other TCGs I have played throughout the decades all have sets in themes, rely more on deckbuilding than net-decking, have room for big variations in decks. I am so done with every new “era” being introduced with another Gardevoir with the same Energy Card engine printed on it. Nothing new.
what was the theme with base set?
Gernally, yeahj. I agree. I do think MtG has similar issues, where many of us want to get back to “fair magic” that we remember from about 10 years ago… Has it been that long since Innistrad?! Geeze…
Anyway, I think that as long as the same game designers are working on the game, we’ll get the same general meta for gameplay. I remember when I made up a tempo artifact/treasure sac U/B deck it was really unique, and my R/G stompy with experimental frensy for top-decking was a beast (literally) but those were rare times…
I miss my M Alakazam zero energy lock-down, and my Gengar energy burn decks, but again, rare times.
I imiagine, a lot like pop media today, giant corporations don’t want to take risks, because they could not make money. Imagine if NOT MAKING MONEY was the biggest concern, because so many fans will buy your stuff that you at least won’t lose it (a la Disney, Star Wars). Is pokemon there?
Spawn new thread!
1 Like
You leaving Pallet Town and being destroyed by the 4th Professor Oak or Lass being played.
2 Likes
i dont get if most people here are sarcastic or not. i would call myself a gen wunner and 2er. whats the problem with that ? seems like you guys got problem with what people like.
creativity ? when pokemon were more simple like a seel or a bird it was more realistic. not a key chain pokemon so give me a break.
See, there’s the difference: you can love Gen 1 & 2, and that’s ok (and probably the most common opinion on this site).
But if you start saying the original designs are all superior and everything modern sucks, then that starts to creep into the territory that this thread is making fun of.
9 Likes
no. no it doesnt. i hate to my guts gen 3 including and above and modern collections yet i do not voice my opinion as it doesn’t interfer with me unless im forced to think like those people.
seems that the people who advocate against genwunner and 2ers are the people that have the problem not me
but that is MY opinion. like you voice your opinion that the gen 3 and up are beautiful i have all rights to say they arent.
yes og designs are superior and everything after and modern cards suck. thats my opinion live with it like i live with yours
I don’t have a problem with gen 1 and 2 designs, they’re actually really great but it does rub the wrong way when generations hence are applying very similar concepts to a variety of real life references with a bit more detail but looked down upon. Inanimate objects converted into gen 1 monsters (e.g. Geodude, Magnemite and especially Porygon) have the same driving characteristics of a Pocket Monster as Klefki, Bergmite and Klingklang. The former have more time to be familiar with, and eventually be fans of.
7 Likes
How many times have you watched Cyber Soldier Porygon? Just curious
2 Likes
People just cannot accept that they grew old and are still getting older.
2 Likes
At least 5-6 times i think. got a wonderful torrent for the whole indigo-orange islands episodes in japanese
im 34. i grew old i accept that. please accept that i have diffrent opinion and do not like modern. i dont openly bash it or advocate against it. however in this thread the lot of you DID bash people that like only gen 1-2.
also please dont try to dissect my personality and what i accept or not mr. psychologist for a 50 cent
i accept what your saying that is your opinion.
however i just do not look modern or further generation after gen 2. why is does that bother you ? stick to what you like but dont tell me what to like as well.
1 Like
After the Ex era
1 Like