What is the PROPER perspective?
My previous response was wordy, so to simplify what I said, you need to consider the game as a whole. When you say "This is better than that, and thus it is good", you're just comparing and contrasting two things. Having $50 stolen from you is "better" than having $500 stolen from you, but neither is "good". The same argument works both ways, which again I admitted: just because someone enjoyed a past format more, doesn't mean the current format is "bad".
Sometimes this kind of reasoning is worth using; but too often I hear it applied as above. There is also the "I am enjoying myself/not enjoying myself" argument. As a customer, the individual still matters, but when you examine the product and its target customers as a whole, does it still make sense? Does the targeted demographic actually lead to lasting sales, or will it be a quick cash in?
Tell that to David Cohen. I'm sure he played RDL in twinboar purely for show.
I was using a somewhat high standard and generalizing at that point. Did the vast majority of decks
need to run a Pokémon LEGEND or be built to counter them? If not, then it wasn't the same level as Pokémon-ex or Pokémon EX then, was it?
Of course, you realize that my larger argument was that Kayle was not giving Legendary Pokémon due credit, so if I was stating they were better than Kayle said they were, and you are pointing out I sold an example short, then Kayle really sold them short. So I can admit when I was wrong; several "gimmick" Pokémon have had about as much success as the regular card pool; it is just easy to miss this since 20 of 100 cards being successful doesn't strike one as much as only two of 10.
Your point stopped being any sort of valid right here. If we get to use imaginary formats to make our arguments, then I counter and say no legendary Pokemon are viable because in my made up format, a stadium exists that says "All Legendary Pokemon have 10 HP"
So... let me be clear, cabd: You pick a sub-point of a sub-point I made, claim it is wrong and thus everything else I said must be wrong. I believe that is referred to as "fallacy fallacy". If you want to hold this conversation to a higher standard (which you need to in order for your complaint to be reasonable), you still have to prove the rest of what I said wrong.
I listed the Legendary Pokémon that were played competitively
Mewtwo and
Articuno during an actual historical period of the game. I mentioned that one or both of the older
Zapdos saw a little serious play at that time but weren't quite up to snuff and faded out. To give a better idea of how close those two
Zapdos were to seeing competitive play, I pointed out that I tested them somewhat extensively (along with most of the card pool, though I did not mention that since I thought it was implied) and if you remove
Super Energy Removal and
Energy Removal (two real cards that are very powerful and considered "broken" by many), then the two
Zapdos proved quite competitive.
Your counter point is that you make up a format without describing it at all and cite one card that has a beneficial effect for Pokémon LEGEND to "prove" all Pokémon LEGEND are now "good". When I turn my head and squint, I see some parallels, but that disappears when I look at the comparison plainly. Since my comment about testing without S/ER (again, two real cards widely viewed as overpowered) did not apply to
Mewtwo or
Articuno, how does that render my point invalid that overall Legendary Pokémon see as much success as non-Legendary cards?
