Does it not irk you that Pokemon is viewed as a "Simpleton's game"?

[mysteriousxatu]

Today at school, I was watching my friend play a Pokemon game on his downloaded ROM. Everything was quite fine, until someone decided it would be a fine idea to label Pokemon "Simple". This is acceptable as I respect the opinions of others,however I felt the need to reply by naming aspects of Pokemon that would not be considered simple. For example...I began explaining Evs,Ivs,the Pekerus,STAB ect, and he just said that nobody in the World would look into Pokemon that in depth. He even criticized my use of the word "Philosophical". I was merely trying to reinforce the fact that Pokemon is not that simple when looked at from a competitive aspect. Has anyone else had an experience like this?

[piexing]

Hah, most of the people at my school seem to think like that. Most of those people threaten to shoot things a lot and my friends also like Pokémon, so it's no big deal.
It annoys me a little bit if they don't just shut up after I begin explaining it, but oh well. They're similar to pompous rich people in that they're worse off but they don't realize it. In this case they're depriving themselves of Pokémon. ^_^

[Justjack91]

I tend to impress people with the depth of the game when they genuinely listen to me explain it.

It's really fun when you explain the gameplay in terms of poker. The game is definitely dependent on skill, and every player plays differently, but eventually, you are going to be in situations where you need to interpret the trainer as well.

Say a Pokemon is sent out from a person you are battling at a tourney. Now, you know several of the possible strategies of this Pokemon (for this example, you believe it is a "choice" Pokemon and is going to sweep), so you switch to a wall that will take hits. Instead of it being a "choice" Pokemon, it creates a substitute and decides to buff its stats. Now it can cream your wall unless you have a counter to a "stat-boosting" Pokemon.

In person-to-person battles, it become a matter of whether or not you believe your opponent is bluffing. It goes beyond a Pokemon just having "one role."

This is just one example of the complex nature of Pokemon.

[Shadow]

I wish people over here say Pokémon is 'simple'. Because they say worse things than that.

Pokémon is generally looked upon as a 'childish, lame franchise' here. There are few people who play Pokémon in my school, including me. Why? Because if students at my school find out I play Pokémon, I'll be harassed and humiliated till the rest of my life (or even under my grave, don't exclude that). Yes, it is that bad. I get extremely mad when someone starts laughing/mocking another person who plays Pokémon.

So, simply put, only 1 friend in real life, that is Spirit, knows that I play Pokémon, along with my family and several cousins of mine.

[LiteTheIronMan]

Actually, yesterday in PE, the opposite happened. Someone was ripping on me for playing Pokemon, but then a group of two or three kids began making fun of HIM for NOT playing Pokemon.

Pokemon is... How should I put this.

It's a lot like Smash and other HAL games. The mechanics are simple, RPG mechanics. Send a character out on the field, have him attack the enemy until the enemy is eliminated. If the enemy beats you instead, then you lose. Simple, right? Well, it is.

But, on the other hand, if you begin playing within the metagame, then it becomes an entirely different affair. You're controlling the stats your Pokemon excels in, what moves it learns, how you use it, etc.

How Smash and HAL games in general tie into it is that, the controls and basic gameplay can be simple, but then they can expand into new, diverse techniques and become a more complex gameplay experience.

So, yes, it is a simpleton's game. But it's also a deep, complex affair...

[Justjack91]

I mean we can make jokes about how there are "too many Pokemon" and laugh at Penny Arcade comics or videos that make fun of Pokemon ("We're going for God!" "Nope, got that one too."), but it's the general game play we enjoy the most.

Pokemon is an RPG with a lot of characters to choose from. Each character can be used differently and some are better than others. The only difference is these characters do not speak words and are instead guided by the player to be involved in the story.

When you get down to it, Pokemon really is "simple" in that regard. It's like any other game that any one else can play. A lot of people have played some form of a RPG game. Therefore, it should not be discriminated that it's a "child's game" when it's just like several other games that people have played.

There's just a good fan-base behind this series.

[masterzhangcaosun]

Being a FF and Pokemon Fan I get the simplicity argument a lot more then most Pokemon fans and on top of that I get the "Pokemon is childish" argument as well.

I mean just last Thursday(and probably today as well) I was 10 Minutes late for my class trying to explain the depth of strategy in both only to have it go over this guys head. COD, Halo and etc. are ruining a great games and giving almost everyone that play them an impression that everything needs to be on the surface to be counted and that you can't formulate strategy if is not there to see

We should create some kind of ASDPA(Anti-Simplistic Definition of Pokemon Alliance) or something I mean we have the AAPA(which I'm a proud member of)

.....they link it to the M rating for movies since the rating system uses the same symbols.

This is a post I made on another site yesterday about a M rated Game(Australian OFLC, which is T in ESRB) that is going to be released on the Wii. Now the same works in reverse here. Most Australian gamers link the PG and G rating to kids movies.

PG = for Kids = Simple game
Anyone playing PG rated = Kid

[Mooshykris]

Hmmmm, I don't think I've ever gotten the "simple" argument, and I likely couldn't defend with talk of competitiveness, since I hate competitive battling, however, I have seen the "childish" argument way too many times.

~Chris