The author of this page he shown himself to be quite an... let's say... intellectually challenged person in the other thread. I suspect he is just trolling now so I'm just going to disregard his posts. I don't think this debate will be necessary anymore unless someone sees it fit to continue. If that's true:
I am a purist about the intention of game characters fighting game characters. If you look at Pokemon, you see them do things, have abilities, get into scenarios that would never present themselves in the games and are totally unable to be replicated at all. The anime and movies just destroy the sophisticated order, math, and balance that the game designers strive to accomplish. On top of that, not many characters in games do get their own TV show or movie to exploit themselves and have ridiculous powers from it. So, in that regard, I try to stay "true to the game."
Regardless, you didn't answer my question about the suit re-boot.
If the suit is disabled, how could she possibly reboot it? She rebooted it when she was infected with a virus but that's hardly the same. The suit was still active at the point where she rebooted. You can't reboot a computer if the system is fried, since it won't boot in the first place. Embargo does nothing less than disable all that's equiped and prevent you from using any equipment for the duration of the battle.
Originally posted by coreygames
The author of this page he shown himself to be quite an... let's say... intellectually challenged person in the other thread. I suspect he is just trolling now so I'm just going to disregard his posts. I don't think this debate will be necessary anymore unless someone sees it fit to continue. If that's true:I am a purist about the intention of game characters fighting game characters. If you look at Pokemon, you see them do things, have abilities, get into scenarios that would never present themselves in the games and are totally unable to be replicated at all. The anime and movies just destroy the sophisticated order, math, and balance that the game designers strive to accomplish. On top of that, not many characters in games do get their own TV show or movie to exploit themselves and have ridiculous powers from it. So, in that regard, I try to stay "true to the game."
Regardless, you didn't answer my question about the suit re-boot.
Don't disregard his posts, he's probably made some decent points. I'd look if my SWF wasn't banned.
The anime is actually pretty faithful to the games except for the comedic aspects, such as Team Rocket being blown miles away and surviving it every episode, and Ash taking Pikachu thunderbolts for the entire series. The anime and movies and the like just serve as more material to reference the power of the Pokemon from.
Originally posted by Rapidash
If the suit is disabled, how could she possibly reboot it?
Originally posted by Rapidash You can't reboot a computer if the system is fried, since it won't boot in the first place. Embargo does nothing less than disable all that's equiped and prevent you from using any equipment for the duration of the battle.
This says nothing about frying hardware let alone shutting down anything at all. It says "held items." What is she holding? If you have a T-Shirt on, I don't say you are holding it... but that may be arguing the semantics of the word. In either case, I don't think this justifies her not being able to simply turn her suit back on or return it to a working state.
As a point of reference for me, what items do pokemon hold and what are their effects?
Originally posted by MooCowofJustice
Don't disregard his posts, he's probably made some decent points. I'd look if my SWF wasn't banned.
He did until we disproved them. Then he said them again, and we disproved him once more. Then he continued to say the same thing again and again after we told him he was wrong. So... I think he's just trying to troll us. I don't care for that too much 😉
He did until we disproved them. Then he said them again, and we disproved him once more. Then he continued to say the same thing again and again after we told him he was wrong. So... I think he's just trying to troll us. I don't care for that too muchYou disproved nothing, actually. You attempted to disprove Link's strength by using gameplay mechanics as a reference point, and I disregarded it, citing gameplay mechanics as a faulty basis for a claim in a debate.
you've also provided no feats for Samus of your own, and have been quite content to try and use gameplay to pick apart my arguments rather than canonfacts concerning the charcters in this debate.
<3 you too.
Edit: Maybe you can hango out with BT. 😛 He's more your style.
-Shinny.
Originally posted by coreygamesBT got a buddy.
If a computer is turned off... can you not... just... turn it back on?Embargo:
Foe is unable to use held itemsThis says nothing about frying hardware let alone shutting down anything at all. It says "held items." What is she holding? If you have a T-Shirt on, I don't say you are holding it... but that may be arguing the semantics of the word. In either case, I don't think this justifies her not being able to simply turn her suit back on or return it to a working state.
As a point of reference for me, what items do pokemon hold and what are their effects?
He did until we disproved them. Then he said them again, and we disproved him once more. Then he continued to say the same thing again and again after we told him he was wrong. So... I think he's just trying to troll us. I don't care for that too much 😉
Knock it off. Everyone. You're so far from constructive as possible, and that goes to all from coreygames and Burning Thought to ScreamPaste and MooCowofJustice. Just drop it and behave. Baiting, trolling and bashing isn't allowed, so let's be kind to the moderator and try not have her come here and pull the authority card out of her sleeve.
Originally posted by coreygames
If a computer is turned off... can you not... just... turn it back on?Embargo:
Foe is unable to use held itemsThis says nothing about frying hardware let alone shutting down anything at all. It says "held items." What is she holding? If you have a T-Shirt on, I don't say you are holding it... but that may be arguing the semantics of the word. In either case, I don't think this justifies her not being able to simply turn her suit back on or return it to a working state.
As a point of reference for me, what items do pokemon hold and what are their effects?
As far as I'm aware, Samus armor is an item. A big item, but an item non-the-less.
A shirt is clothing, but a shirt doesn't have properties. Although technically, a shirt is an item due to the property of keeping you warm and relatively dry.
Which is beside the point, since each piece of Samus armor definately falls into the item category.
As for Pokémon items:
There's a lot of items, but out of all that you can go with, there's one particular type of item that helps in this debate: That's plating (Body armor) which has varying effects on the Pokémon, generally enhancing their power. In this category falls generally anything you equip on your body as part of what's defined as body protection. Plating. As proof that this effect not only Pokémon but also technology, I'll bring up that it can disable "Scope Lens", which simply put is the ability for your Pokémon to zoom and enhance vision through technology (In game, increases the critical hit probability for the Pokémon)
Also, to have something disabled is basically the equivalent of having a fried system. Have you tried starting your computer without power supply? If your computer would be disabled (In this case, EMP bomb is the propriate example), say by an EMP bomb, you wouldn't be able to start it. This, because it's disabled. Which is the concept of Embargo: To disable.
But you are changing the utility of the move to affect Samus specifically. The move forces the foe to drop a held item. Problems with this affecting Samus' suit is:
A) Not being held.
B) How would she "drop" it?
C) It is not an EMP bomb, a thing that fries circuitry, nore removing the power supply from her suit.
Your example of scope lens is just an item that the pokemon is holding that he or she drops. It is not part of their eye, it is not fried, and it is not disabled. They drop it.
Secondly, you didn't answer my ice-based question because you are assuming she won't get to fire once in this fight... or something. Do you think she's just going to stand there while he does the first two moves?
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Actually, knock off is a move that forces them to drop the held item, Embargo forbids use of it./Correction
Thus it's valid.
Battle Effect:
Foe is unable to use held items
Nothing about electromagnetic forces nor mentioning anything about frying the item. It doesn't "stand." If anything, I still don't see why a sophisticated piece of technology wouldn't have a "Oh crap, turn me back on" button, system, or device. Its not like she's never been zapped before.
You sort of helped me out there. You claimed in the post before that one that it forced the drop of an item, and used this as your basis for your argument against it.
Now that we've established definitively it disables her suit, whether she can turn it back on or not, MewTwo has an instant win. Cripple her, hit her with an attack off of a massive SP. Atk stat, cripple her again if her suit comes back online.