This is the first time I've looked at this article and I must say that, Aisor is the biggest critic on the format.
Nope. Frankly I bet I am a bigger critic; I just haven't yet written a satisfactory article detailing my points. Even ignoring my opinion of myself, only the specifics of his view really set him apart from others.
There is absoulutely no point in the title as no matter what he cares about, Pokemon WON'T listen and for all we know, the X & Y TCG could continue on the Exs ( god yeah!!!).
You make a statement and then fail to support the "logic" behind it. Claiming there is absolutely no point in something means there isn't any point at all. Instead, you hold up one
narrow example of something unlikely (but not impossible) happening.
1) Pokémon is a commercial venture; while unlikely there is a chance the views expressed on this board (including Aisor's) will be considered.
2) Aisor seems more concerned with drawing the attention of the online player base to his concerns; those behind Pokémon are less likely to ignore many than they are a single player.
3) While the EX mechanic may continue on with X & Y, in the context of the article (and thus the title), it was the nature of this format, referred to by the author as the "EX era", that was the chief concern. I quickly skimmed through the original post (having read it twice before) and did not see a call for the elimination of the EX mechanic, but of concerns about how it was implemented.
I've seen thousands of these messed up articles on other various sites, including Serebii, PokeBeach, Marriland, etc.
Exaggeration is not a good tool for arguing a point. Even if one accepts a bit of hyperbole as being a good technique, your execution undermines your earlier point; if "thousands" of these kinds of articles then I am quite certain those behind the Pokémon game would be paying a lot of attention; it may be easier to write such things than ever before, but people do read such articles and if each article convinced only one other person that the author was right, those "thousands" double (assuming different authors for each article).
Despite it being a lot easier to get such articles published to a website (or even posted on your own blog), businesses have long lived and died by word-of-mouth. The more you complain about how common these articles are, the more credibility you give them. Note that neither being the majority nor the minority prove or disprove an argument.
As for being "messed up", being vague does little good. If that is your conclusion, state it as such; otherwise it sounds like instead of a legitimate argument, you are merely mocking the other side (which usually indicates one has no relevant arguments).
I bet these same people, near the end of the next format will complain about how crappy the format was and will eventually call this format good.
A format being "good" or "enjoyable" does not make the format perfect. You are implying hypocrisy but not actually demonstrating it. Even the best formats I believe were the best had problems, and I tried to address them at the time. That is just how problems get fixed, while ignoring those problems has shown a pattern of making formats less enjoyable than they could have been.
"Good" is relative; if the next format is less enjoyable than the last, yes players may lament the former format's passing and refer to is as "good". It is akin to referring to an object as "warm"; a "warm" soda is a lot cooler than a "warm" muffin! So while it is good to recognize a format's actual strengths, it is not being double-minded to point out a format's flaws when one even if one is otherwise enjoying it, or to recognize a format as being better than what is currently available.
The thing is that these people don't reconise a format is good until the end of the next where they complain about that one instead.
You need to explain why this is relevant. You say this like it is a bad thing, but guess what? You need experience to appreciate a format, and sometimes you simply cannot know how good a format was until it passed. This isn't arithmetic; you can't easily do the math and know that 1+1=2 or that 2+2=/=5. When this game first released, players thought almost every fully Evolved Pokémon could be competitive. After a while, the knowledge that only two decks really were tournament viable at the time spread, but many people who played the game now still don't realize that!
Remember the older ex format? Everyone called that the worse until the met the DP format where LuxChomp ruled over the format.
This is incorrect, and it seems quite dubious you legitimately did not know that your statement was factually incorrect. I remember this format because it happened when I was most involved in the game! Information dissemination wasn't at its current level, but it not only existed but was just a less refined version of what we have now.
My personal testimony is that most players believed the Pokémon-ex focused formats of E-On (2003-2004), RS-On (2004-2005), HL-On (2005-2006), and DX-On (2006-2007) were the best this game had ever experienced even while they were still happening. It was a very optimistic time as the game's overall quality seemed to be staying steady or gradually improving. Few people were pining for the days where Unlimited was the Standard Format (1999-2001) or Rocket-On (2001-2002) or Neon (2002-2003).
What is more, it was a very specific period of the DP-On format where players grew frustrated;
Garchomp [C] LV.X released as part of
DP: Supreme Victors. While part of the DP era of sets, that era spanned from the release of that era's "base set" (
Diamond and Pearl, street legal May 23, 2007) through the release of
DP: Arceus (street legal November 4th, 2009). That is over a two-and-a-half year period, and
DP: Supreme Victors didn't even become street legal until its official release August 10th, 2009. You're telling me
Garchomp [C] LV.X was a problem two years before it even released?
Ah, maybe you mean the other
Garchomp released during this time period. They were Stage 2 Pokémon, and while they may have been mighty, they were Stage 2 Pokémon. Sorry to be redundant, but even when I didn't like a particular deck dominating (and that happens during every format, but usually not for the whole format), was one of these other
Garchomp the only deck to dominate that whole time? I seem to remember complaints about how strong
Gallade (
DP: Secret Wonders 6/132) was during this time.
When calling a format bad, how about you at least try to relate with the other people you like the format. Only then can you have the right to judge whether a format is bad or not.
This doesn't make any sense; I mean the wording doesn't create something I can understand. I know you were addressing Aisor, but given that you made blanket statements about all critics and this is a discussion on an open forum and not a PM, I am part of it. Are you asking that Aisor "try to relate
to other people
who like the format", or ask that Aisor "try to explain to the other people what he* likes about the format"?
These are actually good things for anyone to do when trying to explain something. However, it has nothing to do with someone's "right" to judge whether a format is good, bad, or something in between. "Rights" are inherent (hence the term), so either it isn't a right but a privilege or Aisor has that right regardless. I recognize someone's freedom of speech, so Aisor has the right to state his opinion. He doesn't own the Pokégym, but as long as he follows the rules, if they are being internally consistent he maintains the privilege of voicing his own analysis and opinions here.
He has the right to judge; he just may not be right in how he judges.
Well, that was me explaining why these posts are completely stupid as most of you haven't taken the time to ask the people who like the format, what they like about it. Next time, how about you guys do proper research into the format before you go on screeching about how bad the format is.
You realize that you don't seem to have done proper research, and your posts, while
much shorter than mine usually aren't easy reading either. You've gotten plenty of facts wrong in various posts, and to be to the point telling people to shut up about something they don't like just because you don't like what they are saying is hypocritical and historically has lead to much evil.
tl;dr: rcxd999, many people don't like what I say on message boards. That is their right. If you don't like what someone is saying, you are free to post a rebuttal, but make sure you are being logically consistent and strive to give correct information. Many will read what I wrote and dismiss it as a mere "rant", but if they do I am merely in your good company. :wink:
*Not sure if Aisor is male or female; I chose to go with the male/neutral "he" pronouns, not that many consider that PC.
) to remind me that one must be very, very careful about discussing what they dislike about something, lest it come across as thoughtless complaining and whining.