BurningStickMan

Bah, you guys are lucky you have such variety! In my day it was just Cam Clarke, and you were lucky to have him!

Cool, thanks all!

Going into this with the only prior series knowledge being that I am to catch them all. Got that part. Think I understand attack stats and trying to min/max that with natures. Beyond that, basically wondering when it's cool to stop catching a Pokemon I already have.

Or in other words, I'm trying to avoid:

1) Having a bank full of useless ass Pokemon, unless I get something for it. I wanna add them to the Pokedex then chuck em to focus on my "A" team.

2) Training one Pokemon for many hours, only to catch a copy later on that's just naturally outright better than the one I've been working on (and wasting all that effort)

Is the series just not going to do that to me? Or is there something to watch out for?

Pretty sure Dan said he'd never played these, so I'd flip it and have him at the controls.

And agree, tons borrowed. But also typical Kojima. Meryl originally from Policenauts, Dr. Petrovich Modnar from Snatcher being in MG1 first, etc.

I feel like the only way this can end is with that Taco Bell chihuahua bursting from your stomach.

$4! That's about $1 for each Samuel L. Jackson scene!

Stay through the explanation, and you will be rewarded.

@rorie: You and the mods have been doing a great job Rorie. I'm not going to claim to be the keeper of the Internet lore, but I've never seen a site unlock a topic after a cool down period so the discussion can continue rationally. If that was an experiment, I'd say it's a big success, and I think asking for some down time for your and the mods' sanity is more than fair. Rorie, everyone, look under your seat. It's a puppy. Everyone's earned a puppy.

The ones who don't want the responsibility are often the ones best suited for it.

I remember the fear, at least in my circles, when the US hearings on video game violence were happening. Though we would have defended this statement to the death, ultimately, we were a bunch of kids afraid that Congress was going to take away what we liked. Could I rationally and objectively explain why being able to rip someone's head off in Mortal Kombat was enjoyable? Not without sounding like a psychopath - and we KNEW that - so our arguments instead were more about "it's just a game," "it's just fantasy," "it's no big deal," and even tossing around some "freedom of speech" guff like we knew what the hell we were talking about at 14.

But the fact is, we liked the violence. It was "cool." Maybe because it was forbidden, maybe it speaks to something primal, who knows? Outside the scope of a dumbass forum post. We felt a positive reaction to it and we wanted to continue feeling that. That was the driving force behind wanting to keep out censorship, period. Everything else was just bullshit reasoning.

I bring it up, because I see a lot of parallels to that experience, and the reaction to the "social agenda" these days. I wonder how much of this is, not so much about refusing to let girls into the clubhouse, but that the boys are worried their toys will be taken away. The games they like will be forced to change. The polygon boobies they can't possibly rationally explain why the enjoy - they just know they do - won't be allowed anymore. Call of Duty is replaced by a dozen expressionist indies to be "more accepting to the female audience." Etc. Etc.

Maybe that's just an idealistic hope that people aren't shitty to women because they're women.

Still, I do wonder what it would have been like if Twitter and blogs had been around during the 1992 hearings. Would Lieberman and Col. Grossman have gotten anonymous death threats? (probably.) Would there have been a hashtag about how Night Trap was being misrepresented and it's all a conspiracy (definitely.)