naznatips said:
Khuutra said:
Well, yes. With necessarily limited movesets, a Pokemon's roles is determined by its four moves nearly as much as its IVs and its type combination.
I have never argud that the options with Pokemon are not astronomical, but options do not make a game complex. In the metagame one must still be able to counter every single one of a given list of threats or a team is not viable (i.e. "Gyarados can come in on any move this guy has, DD, and sweep your entire team"), and the restraints of that necessarily limit the metagame. The metagame is defined primarily by game theory, not by the complexity of the system itself.
You still have twenty-four moves to work with, a maximum of twelve types, and six sets of IV/EV combinations. The possibilities are enormous but the necessary application of these possibilities truncates the potential complexity of gameplay. The metagame is complex because of the players in spite of a simple system.
|
That's silly. Every strategy in every game that involves it regards consideration of the possibilities of your opponent's offense and strategy. By your argument there is no such thing as good or complex strategy. If what you said was true Chess would be the simplest game ever made, because you already know exactly what your opponent has and how it can move.
|
Chess, I would argue, is a complex game, but not so complex that it can be used in that context. The complexity in chess comes from two sources. The first is an awareness of the game board and the ability to see it in sections instead of as a collection of pieces (chess masters can look at an entire board and understand what is going on, whereas normally even very good players can only look at one section at a time). The second is game theory. Game theory is the primary source of complexity in any competitive game system.
