This type of perception and expectation for a game that has built-in mechanics that require certain aspects of matches to be decided by a random number generator (RNG) rather than player interaction isn’t reasonable or fair to the game. It’s actually probably what’s currently damaging a lot of the game’s chances to grow, and unfortunately there really hasn’t been an emphasis on anything to make this clear. While you may see that the Smash match that you just watched features entirely the player versus the player and really wish it were constantly the same for Pokemon, it isn’t going to be that way. Regardless of how much you want it, the game is never going to hinge entirely on player-on-player interaction. It’s still a major part of the game, but its counterpart, the RNG, must also be accepted as a part of the game for what it does influence and must be taken into account.
Why is this important? Recently, and just as much as there always has been, there’s been a lot of complaining about things such as Rock Slide, Thunder Wave, critical hits, and the sorts as if there is some negative connotation associated with them based on perception. Sure, it deviates from the player interaction facet and puts the game on a scale of odds rather than one-hundred percent outcomes of any given situation, but that doesn’t necessarily make it “bad” or “wrong”. It’s simply part of the game we play. It’s not a negative or a positive, it exists within the game and must be recognized as a facet. Associating it with a negative stigma isn’t helping foster a competitive environment and isn’t helping grow the game on a competitive basis.
There’s always been a lot of comparing Pokemon to poker. They aren’t extremely comparable in some areas but the presence of both luck management and player interaction in both games is a fair comparison. How much each of these facets of the game actually affects its respective game is up for discussion and likely differs quite a bit, but the coexistence of both such facets is important to recognize. People still play poker competitively and for major stakes, but if the risk management and “luck mitigation” were thrown out the window and shone in a negative light, no one would want to play the game as it would be presented as undesirable.
What I just described is what needs to be recognized with Pokemon in general as a competitive game. The situations where the RNG plays a role are very large and mean a much greater deal to the game than comparative “e-sports” or other largely competitive games. It seems that players all too often try to compare the game, as mentioned with the Smash example before, to games that have similar standing competitively but very different mechanics and subsequently very different emphasis on what is necessary to control and make use of to win games. The lack of player control doesn’t necessarily invalidate the game’s competitive viability or ability to grow, but rather makes it different from other games. Such a difference should ideally pique interest of players and should be explored, and the intertwining of the RNG and human interaction should be lauded, not frowned upon.
The reason the negativity surrounding the differences of Pokemon is problematic is actually a twofold problem. The first issue, as highlighted in the above paragraph, is that such negativity is not helping the game develop competitively as its major distinction and the role it plays in making the game a dynamic, competitive game. The second is that when either noteworthy or successful players are publicly bashing the game due to a very critical aspect of it (and one that arguably might make it appealing to others to try the game), it actually pushes people away from the game entirely. Who wants to play a game that not even the top players find fun because of one of the key elements of it?
This isn’t saying you should go out and start Swaggering every Kangaskhan you see turn 1. This also isn’t implying that you need to start throwing as many luck-based elements into your game as possible. What it’s getting at is being content with the element of the RNG existing and trying to understand and master the way it allows the game to deviate from player interaction. Ultimately it might end up coming back to bite you, and it might end up giving you a game you otherwise may not have won. If you play enough and correctly factor the significance of the odds for and against you into your gameplan, statistics prove that eventually it will balance itself out over a long period of time. Who knows, maybe you find that the ideal way of playing is to limit its effect on the game and to play for as much player control as possible. But such a finding should come from your own interpretation of how elements of the RNG actually affect the game rather than how you think they should affect the game.
If you don’t think this is something you desire in a competitive game, it’s probably better to look for another game to invest your time in competitively -- there's a ton of different games out there and one of them is bound to be what you're looking for. However, if you find appeal in such a game as Pokemon and you’d actually like to play it given the parameters, come check it out. If you already play it and want to further understand it for what exists rather than well on what be, it'd be awesome to see you help build the game up competitively. We still have a lot to gain yet when it comes to high-level play.
I personally love how the two elements intertwine and I think that if given the proper significance is placed on both facets of the game among enough of the competitive player base, the game will grow in really interesting ways and become something that’s more well-represented in the world of competitive gaming.
No comments:
Post a Comment