Why do we like Pokemon?

>>32011942
The concept is fun. It captures the best part of the word "adventure" perfectly. For the longest time, though, the anime did a better job of presenting a fun and alive world. I've only started becoming a big fan since the games started focusing more on the story, making every game feel like an adventure of my own, rather than a long series of battles.

tl;dr best adventure game

>>32011953
Modern Game Freak doesn't do the series justice lately. It's kind of sad seeing it get squandered.

Well you see, it got my attention as a little kid, which I got into because my older cousin introduced me to it. When there was a point where I was going to put it down, a friend bought me the newest game at the time, and I continued playing.

Basically I started liking it at a young age, and if I didn't like it then, then I wouldn't like it as much or at all if I started playing just a couple years ago.

Because we're good goys

>>32011942
Because we are idiot manchildren who have not grown up and moved on to SMT yet

>>32011942
because like three dozen or so out of 800 are really fuggable

Raising pokemon and exploring a region and fighting our way to being the best. It's a very childish power fantasy that doubles as a fun and ever-so-rarely challenging game. It's engaging with tons of features (even if most are new and are gone by the next gen) and so many pokemon that everyone can have a favorite. It's amazing. There's also a heavy nostalgia factor, I bet 90% of people who play these games past 20 started when they were younger than 10. The series is amazingly good at retaining an audience.

>>32011942
Because the battle makes the game looks like a Fighting game with RPG elements, and that sole thing makes it an unique game. Other unique game is Captain Subasa's games which are a soccer game with RPG elements.

I like that almost everything any NPC can do in any battle is something you can do too. It's not like a standard JRPG in which you do 50k damage a turn to kill something with 1 billion HP while healing off 5k damage done to you every turn so you don't die because you have 9999 max HP.

Beast taming is also fun, especially when they practically volunteer themselves for it.

File: images (3).jpg (11KB, 220x229px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 220x229px

Honestly love evolving mons. I love taking bros and making them their strongest selves, outside the occasional prevos I love more (Nidorano. Rhyhorn).

The collection aspect as well,but less so. I enjoy the combat, but it's so simplistic I wouldn't dare call it engaging. Same with the story.

File: 1484557014543.png (298KB, 402x368px) Image search: [Google]

298KB, 402x368px

>>32013114
Those numbers remind me of FFVIII
>I lost the fourth disc

>>32011942
i love the decision making when battling against other players and the small rush i get when making the right call and KOing an opposing mon. in game i tend to enjoy capturing pokemon and evolving them

>>32013143
>but it's so simplistic I wouldn't dare call it engaging
If one of the deepest combat format in an rpg based on turns its for you too simplistic you need to check your brain.

>>32013162
Final Fantasy VIII?

>>32013369
Yes

>>32011942
I can't answer for why you or anyone else on this board likes Pokemon, but for me, it's two factors.

One - I got into it as a kid on release day. Growing up, learning about a huge range of different things from classical elements, creatures, numbering, organization, strategic planning, fossils, barter, sharing, teaching, etc. in a fun context in my free time in a format I could do in my free time was a solid fucking pillar in my life. Seeing it grow alongside me has also been a great experience, especially since Pokemon is one of the few (if not the only) franchise that has never "sold out" or done a wild 360 turn on anything it holds as a central tenet. Sure, it's retconned some things very infrequently but I'm more impressed by how solid the basic formula still holds up even when blended with new mechanics and monsters.

Two - I ended up becoming a character animator and Pokemon probably influenced that. Making categorizing 100+ unique fictional characters appealing on a purely mental level is no easy feat. I can't write a lot here, but long story short I believe that the concept of "character" is one of the most important aspects of the entire human culture, and Pokemon demonstrates that perfectly. Ask yourself - what IS Pokemon? Is it the games? No. Is it the TV show? No, not just those things. Pokemon is, simply, the concept, the ideas of all of these characters. The cards, games, plushes, TV show and all other media? That comes after. It's merely an expression of these ideas of character. All Pokemon merchandise could be spontaneously destroyed, yet those characters would still remain extant in the hearts and minds of us - those who know them in and out. That is what Pokemon represents to me.

Pokémon generally make for better friends than people.

>>32013464
That's a very nice way to look at it anon.

>>32013340
lol

>>32013340
What makes it deep? Memorizing type weaknesses? Sell that to someone who's buying, kid. I'm not saying it's bad by any means. But pretending it's "deep" is fully tarded

>>32013977
Competitively it's very deep. Understanding and planning turns in advanced, understanding what your opponent is likely to do next and knowing what you can get away with at every point in the fight are all deep mechanics of competitive PvP. Singleplayer, you're absolutely right, it's got the depth of a puddle.

>>32013977
It's as deep as chess, or rather a very gimmicky and random kind of chess where you only have one piece out at a time.

The chess analogy isn't that good now that I think about it.

>>32013977
I'm not the guy you're responding to, but I agree with him. It's not exactly the Marianas Trench of deep gameplay mechanics, but it's at a sort of Lagrange point between complexity and accessibility: any more complex mechanics might make it inaccessible to new players, who can, at the moment, learn pretty rapidly and progress from simple strategies like type cores to Trick Room and speed control.

Types are not the only thing in Pokemon battle, and even if it were, that would be a fair ways to making a unique battle system - 18 types is a lot, far more than most battle systems which have between four and eight classical elements. Pokemon's types adhere to a more modern and scientific method of elemental interaction, such as the difference between Ground and Rock or how Steel is be immune to Poison. You're probably forgetting that there are an absolute MYRIAD of ways to battle; there are priority moves, buffing moves, shielding moves, trapping moves, moves that prevent the opponent from doing certain things, moves that affect your team for multiple turns, moves that lock you into them, moves that inflict passive damage, etc etc etc. This is compounded not only by the Pokemon themselves which vary wildly in stats but also by the item slot which can entirely change the focus of a given battle, and abilities which can decide a battle on send-out.

Now, as a system it's not as perfect as Tetris. It's not as elegant as Chess. But it's a hell of a lot more complex, fun and potentially surprising than even most fighting games. What, are you seriously going to use the argument that because it's "turn-based" or "slow" that it's somehow not a complex game of strategy?

>>32012397
>he doesn't enjoy both franchises
SMT for getting my ass handed to me in SP and more adult subject matter in the plot and Pokemon for online and a light hearted plot

neutralfag/chaosfag depending on game, anything other than TDE in nocturne is objectively shit