@thesilverbrick well, in Japanese, Abra is named Casey as a reference to Edgard Cayce, a channeler, while Alakazam is named Houdin for the magician Harry Houdini.
As for the games ban, it's the same situation with Jynx and Porygon. simply put, people who play the games don't care about controversies and people who care about controversies don't play the games.
@xZombieMob while I do agree it'll be a pain to see and hear Biden stutter for the next 4 years, you need to get used to the fact that he's going to win. Do you seriously see reelection chances for Trump? think about it. The man's almost 75, completely out of touch with his country's people. he's a good business man, which means as a president he leads the country to greater economic boom, but at what cost? I think america needs a very left leaning leader right about now to alleviate part of the issues that have been building up. if things have improved socially by 2024 it might be fine to elect a republican again, but not Trump who will be almost 80 and senile by then.
@Kalmaro you're being inconsistent to your own position. You maintain that any given player does not deserve a good and fun experience gaming online with other people (who knows while anyone would hold this position, but alas you do), and at the same time you're telling me that if I know I could just "not go online" in order not to screw up other people's experience, I'm the one at fault here.
So what goes? What makes the spotty connection player different from the good connection player? How can a player simultaneously not deserve the good experience AND have a right to bear a grudge against the other player who robbed him of such an experience?
Honestly the whole debate is pretty crazy in my opinion. I don't know how you as a player and not a company could possibly regard as reasonable the option of "just don't play bro". What incentive can an individual player possibly have to hold that position? Do you not like having fun? Do you enjoy being trampled on by big companies? Anyway seeing your other replies to other users one thing is clear and it is that you can clearly explain everything because your thoughts align with your words, so I'm looking forward to a response.
@Kalmaro I agree with you that companies have the legal right to do whatever they want to your game, what I'm trying to argue here is the morality of their acts, that is, whether they are objectively fair and deserved.
My biggest problem is with the double standard on entitlement. Let me explain.
At the very least, your physical console and the offline features of your cartridge (ie the story mode/postgame/battle tower/whatever in the case of pokemon), are mostly your own domain (with exceptions of course). All good until this point.
But when you enter into the realm of patches and DLCs adding content to your game, paying Nintendo to play online using their servers, and even paying $5 a month or whatever for Pokemon Home as a Pokemon warehouse, things start to get tense.
At what point is "no entitlement" applied? If you're owed absolutely nothing, nothing at all, then what is the incentive for you to make any of the aforementioned purchases, and how is it different from throwing money down a drain? Surely the average player expects a reasonably rational response to his/her purchase in the form of whatever features they get, collectively. Most people won't get banned very often at all.
And if I'm not entitled to my own fun, why are you entitled to the fun I'm stripping from you by having a bad connection? I personally wouldn't use a bad connection for ranked battles, but I can understand the frustration in having to be alone in your suffering.
To me the idea of a game company "not letting them play" [referring to paying customers] seems like a sentence taken right out of a dystopian nightmare.
There must be a reciprocal trust between you and your company that (within a reasonable and rational margin) your expectations are going to be met because you're putting the effort of paying money for them. I guess our disagreement is where the line for "reasonable and rational" ends and where the blurry zone of "ban worthy offenses" starts.
@Kalmaro what kind of toxic mentality is that?
So players with a bad connection should just suck it up and avoid playing online?
I have an extremely good connection, symmetrical 1000mbps upload and download with 1 figure ping, but I'm astounded by you thinking that every player should feel a responsibility to have a good connection.
You say nobody will show sympathy to someone who is ruining others' games.
Why should I care about the experience had by other players?
If I play a game it's for my own enjoyment.
You seem to encourage banning but I'd bet you wouldn't say the same if you were the one being banned.
Bans for bad (unintentional) connection issues are absolutely unjustified and tyrannical.
You seem to believe that as long as a player suffers alone you don't care. I say if I suffer, you better believe I'm gonna share that suffering with as many other players as possible.
Why, according to you, is that a selfish attitude?
I bet you wouldn't mind if it was the opposite (my good connection having a sort of improving effect on other people's connections and actively helping them, which unfortunately doesn't happen). Your hipocrisy is blatant.
Cheating or intentionally disconnecting is different, but it says a lot when you being a (presumably) good connection haver just as I am, you alienate the bad connection havers and turn a blind eye to their suffering. As I said, toxicity at its finest.
Comments 6
Re: It Looks Like Kadabra Can Finally Return To The Pokémon Trading Card Game
@thesilverbrick well, in Japanese, Abra is named Casey as a reference to Edgard Cayce, a channeler, while Alakazam is named Houdin for the magician Harry Houdini.
As for the games ban, it's the same situation with Jynx and Porygon. simply put, people who play the games don't care about controversies and people who care about controversies don't play the games.
Re: "Nintendo Isn't That Smart": Pachter Says Nintendo Should Scrap Switch And 'Only Have Switch Lite'
@xZombieMob while I do agree it'll be a pain to see and hear Biden stutter for the next 4 years, you need to get used to the fact that he's going to win. Do you seriously see reelection chances for Trump? think about it. The man's almost 75, completely out of touch with his country's people. he's a good business man, which means as a president he leads the country to greater economic boom, but at what cost? I think america needs a very left leaning leader right about now to alleviate part of the issues that have been building up. if things have improved socially by 2024 it might be fine to elect a republican again, but not Trump who will be almost 80 and senile by then.
Re: "Nintendo Isn't That Smart": Pachter Says Nintendo Should Scrap Switch And 'Only Have Switch Lite'
Hmm. Well, I play pokemon on docked mostly.
Iknow pokemon is one of the games which are fine handheld, but for some reason I prefer docked.
I'm a weird chap tho because I play games whose entire appeal is mostly online (smash, mario kart, pokken, etc) without NSO.
but I certainly like some games better on docked, like the 2d mario platformers.
So yeah, this dude is absolutely full of red hot steaming delicious bollocks.
Re: The Pokémon Company Threatens To "Permanently Ban" Players Who Deliberately Disconnect From Battles
@Kalmaro you're being inconsistent to your own position. You maintain that any given player does not deserve a good and fun experience gaming online with other people (who knows while anyone would hold this position, but alas you do), and at the same time you're telling me that if I know I could just "not go online" in order not to screw up other people's experience, I'm the one at fault here.
So what goes? What makes the spotty connection player different from the good connection player? How can a player simultaneously not deserve the good experience AND have a right to bear a grudge against the other player who robbed him of such an experience?
Honestly the whole debate is pretty crazy in my opinion. I don't know how you as a player and not a company could possibly regard as reasonable the option of "just don't play bro". What incentive can an individual player possibly have to hold that position? Do you not like having fun? Do you enjoy being trampled on by big companies? Anyway seeing your other replies to other users one thing is clear and it is that you can clearly explain everything because your thoughts align with your words, so I'm looking forward to a response.
Re: The Pokémon Company Threatens To "Permanently Ban" Players Who Deliberately Disconnect From Battles
@Kalmaro I agree with you that companies have the legal right to do whatever they want to your game, what I'm trying to argue here is the morality of their acts, that is, whether they are objectively fair and deserved.
My biggest problem is with the double standard on entitlement. Let me explain.
At the very least, your physical console and the offline features of your cartridge (ie the story mode/postgame/battle tower/whatever in the case of pokemon), are mostly your own domain (with exceptions of course). All good until this point.
But when you enter into the realm of patches and DLCs adding content to your game, paying Nintendo to play online using their servers, and even paying $5 a month or whatever for Pokemon Home as a Pokemon warehouse, things start to get tense.
At what point is "no entitlement" applied? If you're owed absolutely nothing, nothing at all, then what is the incentive for you to make any of the aforementioned purchases, and how is it different from throwing money down a drain? Surely the average player expects a reasonably rational response to his/her purchase in the form of whatever features they get, collectively. Most people won't get banned very often at all.
And if I'm not entitled to my own fun, why are you entitled to the fun I'm stripping from you by having a bad connection? I personally wouldn't use a bad connection for ranked battles, but I can understand the frustration in having to be alone in your suffering.
To me the idea of a game company "not letting them play" [referring to paying customers] seems like a sentence taken right out of a dystopian nightmare.
There must be a reciprocal trust between you and your company that (within a reasonable and rational margin) your expectations are going to be met because you're putting the effort of paying money for them. I guess our disagreement is where the line for "reasonable and rational" ends and where the blurry zone of "ban worthy offenses" starts.
Re: The Pokémon Company Threatens To "Permanently Ban" Players Who Deliberately Disconnect From Battles
@Kalmaro what kind of toxic mentality is that?
So players with a bad connection should just suck it up and avoid playing online?
I have an extremely good connection, symmetrical 1000mbps upload and download with 1 figure ping, but I'm astounded by you thinking that every player should feel a responsibility to have a good connection.
You say nobody will show sympathy to someone who is ruining others' games.
Why should I care about the experience had by other players?
If I play a game it's for my own enjoyment.
You seem to encourage banning but I'd bet you wouldn't say the same if you were the one being banned.
Bans for bad (unintentional) connection issues are absolutely unjustified and tyrannical.
You seem to believe that as long as a player suffers alone you don't care. I say if I suffer, you better believe I'm gonna share that suffering with as many other players as possible.
Why, according to you, is that a selfish attitude?
I bet you wouldn't mind if it was the opposite (my good connection having a sort of improving effect on other people's connections and actively helping them, which unfortunately doesn't happen). Your hipocrisy is blatant.
Cheating or intentionally disconnecting is different, but it says a lot when you being a (presumably) good connection haver just as I am, you alienate the bad connection havers and turn a blind eye to their suffering. As I said, toxicity at its finest.