Twitch Plays Pokemon Somehow Manages to Beat The Game - Update

[lacktheknack]

The game was released in 1996. -___-

I know, and games have only gotten even easier since then.

And obviously you couldn't beat an action game via Twitch. You couldn't beat "Dear Esther" via Twitch either, because you can't accurately point a 360*360 degree camera using up-down-left-right, nor can you properly set walking distances. That's why they chose a game that doesn't require any precision.

Doesn't matter. The very fact that they can have people randomly inputting commands while others troll them means that the game is pathetically easy, and that's not a good thing.

Also, why is gaming getting easier, if it really is (I think it has more to do with people getting better at games), "not a good thing"? Under what circumstances is a lack of rage-quitting undesirable? If you're going to say "I like a challenge", then good for you. Stick with the Souls games and retro gaming if you like challenge and leave the rest to the audience that likes them. If, however, you have a good non-personal reason why easy games are bad, please explain.

I can answer your question. The reason why people are so dead set against "easy games" is because they need to feel like they actually achieved something with gaming. If everyone can beat a game they beat then they can't take pride in it. It isn't about having as much fun as possible as it is about wanting to feel like you achieved something.

Yeah, if you had followed the conversation, you'd see that I mentioned that I've never met anyone in real life that plays games "for the achievement".

There's a reason Popcap games got popular.

 

[MrPhyntch]

A sense of achievement and pride equals fun, and easy games rob one of that, I don't see why you and the others can't understand this. One can do something just for fun at first but boredom quickly sets in if one does not feel like what they are doing is of value. So yes, it is about having as much fun as possible.

Wrong. Wrong from every objective point of view.

Easy games rob YOU of your enjoyment and sense of accomplishment. But they don't necessarily rob, ME of my sense of accomplishment.

One of my favorite RPGs of all time is the Golden Sun series. That game is piss-easy, the puzzles are set up so a toddler could figure them out, and the battle system, short of the bosses, could be beaten by mashing the "A" button constantly, and aside from bonus bosses, the same could be said of most of the main fights. However, I have had more fun with this game than I have ANY Final Fantasy game, including 1, because the aesthetic is enjoyable, the story was remarkable, and the characters, while shallow, were fun.

And that's the thing. Some people don't mind watching movies that they have to push a button every so often to continue (such as Heavy Rain and the like). They find these "games" enjoyable in the same way as movies, while still having interactivity and decision-making, albeit minimal.

Fun is derived from any multitude of ways: a good story, a challenge, a single mechanic can be fun to a person, even if everything else is lacking (see: Portal). Just because the only thing YOU find fun is a challenge doesn't mean that everyone else, hell, ANYONE else is like you. And don't you try to convince me that I didn't enjoy The Walking Dead or Skyrim, because I know for a fact that I sure as hell did, despite any lack of difficulty on either.

 

[Bindal]

If so, then why are you bemoaning the games apparent lack challenge, and therefore fun?

It's because it's true, the main games at least. I barely play anything but the spinoff games anymore because they are the only ones which mix up the formula and provide any actual challenge anymore. The novelty and nostalgia can only blind one to the faults of something for so long.

Except they aren't any easier or harder than the main games. They are just different.

The very fact that you can say that shows you've never actually played them.

Played a lot of them. Not really harder than the base games. Even those of an entirely different genre.

 

[Wolf In A Bear Suit]

I watched the start of the new run through and it was hilarious. Took a good twenty minutes to get out of the house but it's chugging on quite nicely now. Totodile has already achieved meme status.
EDIT: Sweet Jesus the Pokemon music is still playing on my headphones but I swear I closed the tab twenty minutes ago. It's upbeat nature is really getting to me. Bird Jesus is that you?

 

[Charli]

Guys we'll be getting another eevee in Goldenrod, will he betray us just like his father!? STAY TUNED

 

[Strazdas]

Easy games take that enjoyment out of what would otherwise be a good time, and if you can't see that then I can't help but feel pity.

you are wrong and this is a lie.

now that i got your attention. Easy games may take enjoyment out of the game for you personally (although you have proven that to be false too later with your pokemon collection, you claim games are too easy and yet still keep buying the series). that is not true for everyone. There are plenty of games where i just start on easy settings intentionally because i dont want a challenge in the mechanics. i want to play the story/explore/ect, that is fun for me, and that is not a challenge. when i want a challenge i can always just turn on a hard mode, or as in most games already available - just mod a "superhard" mode in. The thing about games is that we can choose our own fun. and just because ours does not equal yours does not make give you a right to dictate how games should be.

Also, guy who posted the article, in the future, please don't embed the livestream itself. Post a link to it, sure, but that embed can really make the page take forever to load, not to mention that I'm sure I'm not the only person here who has the livestream open, let alone any other form of media, like a podcast, or music or some video already open and playing in another tab. Its rather annoying, for me anyways, no offense.

i second that. opening a tab and suddenly have a stream shouting on autoplay is very annoying.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Snip

Without a challenge, there is no fun in a video game, not just for me but for everybody who ever has or ever will play a video game. Challenge is what MAKES a video game a video game. Challenge is the entire advantage that video games have over all other types of media to which it's interactivity would otherwise be a detriment without. An interactive medium is annoying rather than enjoyable if there isn't worthwhile obstacles to experiencing the content. If a video game lacks a challenge it's no different than a movie that you have to keep pressing a button over and over again the entire time to view, a boring tedious activity that you are doing solely to access the content you actually wanted that you could have avoided having to deal with by picking up a book instead. You can get story, character interaction, development, and so forth from reading a book or watching T.V/movies, but you can only get challenge from a video game, the rest is a fringe benefit at best. You don't think that's true that's fine, it doesn't stop it from actually being true.

At this point, I'm finding myself wondering why I ever started arguing with you people to begin with. If you guys don't already know that challenge is important and why not having it is a bad thing pretty much right from the beginning it's something you never will.

 

[Strazdas]

Without a challenge, there is no fun in a video game, not just for me but for everybody who ever has or ever will play a video game.

This is factually incorrect. Since this is incorrect, your whole premise falls apart. To put simply YOU ARE WRONG. you have been given multiple examples of why you are wrong, by at least half a dozen people here, yet you keep repeating same thing over.

Challenge is what MAKES a video game a video game.

Once again, the same mistake.

Challenge is the entire advantage that video games have over all other types of media to which it's interactivity would otherwise be a detriment without.

No, that would be interactivity. Its interactivity that sets it apart of other media types.

An interactive medium is annoying rather than enjoyable if there isn't worthwhile obstacles to experiencing the content.

Citation needed.

If a video game lacks a challenge it's no different than a movie that you have to keep pressing a button over and over again the entire time to view, a boring tedious activity that you are doing solely to access the content you actually wanted that you could have avoided having to deal with by picking up a book instead.

This would be true solely in the most narrow linear railshooters perhaps. False in every other game type where choices exist.

You don't think that's true that's fine, it doesn't stop it from actually being true.

The irony here is astonishing. You believing its true does not make it actually being true.

 

[immortalfrieza]

Snip

No, I haven't been given a single example of why I am wrong, you and others just aren't willing to admit that I am correct so you just say it's factually wrong over and over again when it's pathetically obviously is right. All I've been getting from anyone here equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LALALALA!!" this entire thread.

The fact is, without challenge, video games are nothing, they aren't even video games without it. They are just movies that you have to press a button over and over again to be able to watch, or a book with a million pages that you have to keep flipping the pages to read each and every word, or a T.V. show you have to keep changing the channels constantly to see the entire episode, etc. Without challenge, video games have nothing that is unique to them.

Citation needed

The only citation I SHOULD need is basic common sense. Why would anyone choose to play a video game over any other choice of media without challenge? Why would anyone go through the tedious boredom of playing a video game to access the content they want when there are other options where they don't have to do this available if there wasn't a challenge? The answer: THEY WOULD NOT! Small wonder since there would be no real difference between the video games and other media without it. The challenge is the dividing line between all other media and video games, the reason anyone would even choose to play a video game over all other available media, this is a fact.

This would be true solely in the most narrow linear railshooters perhaps. False in every other game type where choices exist.

The choose your own adventure books quite handily defeat that argument. Even without it my analogy still works, just throw in a fast forward button needed to constantly be pressed alongside a play one. Choices don't make a game, challenge does. Those choices are meaningless if there's no worthwhile challenge to be able to make them and no consequences to making those choices. Without challenge a video game is the equivalent of reading one of those choose your own adventure books by holding the page you just came from and going back if you don't like the choice instead of living with that choice and soldiering on to the end. There is no worth in making a right choice if there's no wrong choice to be made. Similarly, there's no worth in beating a game if there's no actual chance of failure.

The irony here is astonishing. You believing its true does not make it actually being true.

No, being actually true does, and any reasonable person would have admitted that what I've said is true a long time ago. You can refuse to admit it all you want, but you are wrong.

As I said before, if you didn't understand my position from the start, you never will. I am no longer going to waste my time trying to convince people who don't know what the hell they're talking about and aren't willing to admit that they are wrong despite the fact that it couldn't be any more obvious that they are if they were trying to be wrong. I'm out.

 

[Strazdas]

Snip

No, I haven't been given a single example of why I am wrong, you and others just aren't willing to admit that I am correct so you just say it's factually wrong over and over again when it's pathetically obviously is right. All I've been getting from anyone here equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "LALALALA!! I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!! LALALALA!!" this entire thread.

I suggest you to read the thread again then. You may have missed all those examples of people having fun in videogames without requiring a challenge.
Just incase your goign to miss it again ill give you an example right here:
I played Indigo Prophecy. It was piss-easy game to complete. I still had lots of fun with it, because if interactivity and ability to effect the outcome based on my choices.
Here, i just proved you wrong.

The fact is, without challenge, video games are nothing, they aren't even video games without it. They are just movies that you have to press a button over and over again to be able to watch, or a book with a million pages that you have to keep flipping the pages to read each and every word, or a T.V. show you have to keep changing the channels constantly to see the entire episode, etc. Without challenge, video games have nothing that is unique to them.

As i already pointed out, it is iteractivity, not challenge, that seperates videogames from other mediums such as movies. And as i said, had you read my post fully, only very small part of videogames would fit your description.

The only citation I SHOULD need is basic common sense. Why would anyone choose to play a video game over any other choice of media without challenge? Why would anyone go through the tedious boredom of playing a video game to access the content they want when there are other options where they don't have to do this available if there wasn't a challenge? The answer: THEY WOULD NOT! Small wonder since there would be no real difference between the video games and other media without it. The challenge is the dividing line between all other media and video games, the reason anyone would even choose to play a video game over all other available media, this is a fact.

Wrong.
"Common sense is not so common."
-Voltaire

Common sense is not a reference. It is merely your opinion. But then, you kept putting your opinion as a fact this whole thread. WE have already given you plenty of reasons why would people play a game without a challenge.

So i take it you got no actual evidence to support your opinion, sorry, "common sense" then?

The choose your own adventure books quite handily defeat that argument. Even without it my analogy still works, just throw in a fast forward button needed to constantly be pressed alongside a play one. Choices don't make a game, challenge does. Those choices are meaningless if there's no worthwhile challenge to be able to make them and no consequences to making those choices. Without challenge a video game is the equivalent of reading one of those choose your own adventure books by holding the page you just came from and going back if you don't like the choice instead of living with that choice and soldiering on to the end. There is no worth in making a right choice if there's no wrong choice to be made. Similarly, there's no worth in beating a game if there's no actual chance of failure.

You do know that choose your own adventure books are games right? And they have choices but no interactivity, so no they dont defeat the argument.
Interactivity makes game, not challenges. Challenges can be part of the game.

And there does not need to be a challenge to be a wrong choices. And yes you can reload from saves, just like in any game.

No, being actually true does, and any reasonable person would have admitted that what I've said is true a long time ago. You can refuse to admit it all you want, but you are wrong.

And yet you provide zero evidence or arguments for why it actually is true. Oh and nice of you to pull out the "everyone reasonable thinks like me" argument. im sure you'll go a long way with it. Once again ironically your own arguments are the ones that should be used against you, but i digress.

As I said before, if you didn't understand my position from the start, you never will. I am no longer going to waste my time trying to convince people who don't know what the hell they're talking about and aren't willing to admit that they are wrong despite the fact that it couldn't be any more obvious that they are if they were trying to be wrong. I'm out.

I understood your position just fine. Its your claim that its the only position that i have problem with. If challenges are what makes your games fun - thats fine. That isnt true for everyone however.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

I can't wait until they reach the Sinnoh region. The amount of memes that could potentially be produced from that is mind numbing. Hell, the amount from Staraptor ALONE could blow your mind. Think of it - Raptor Bird Jesus. There's so many possibilities it's almost laughable.

Then you've got Empoleon and Garchomp. Throw in a Gardevoir and you might see the most meme-tastic Twitch Plays Pokemon generation EVER.

EDIT: And Shinx as the Lion King.

 

[drakonz]

Also untrue. Everyone feared that the Safari Zone would be the end of this journey. In actuality, the time limit function from the original game was hacked out, making the odds of obtaining Surf much more desirable. So, yes, the game was changed, and depending on one's outlook, one could either add "and only for that one particular area" or "and for what would have been the most amazing obstacle to tackle."

wrong it was never changed the step counter remained within the game thats why it was passed with democrazy i was watching the stream during safari zone thats why i know the orginal time limit is 500 step and 500 step time limit remained within the game so the game is exackly same as the orginal one (heck there wasnt even pokemon hack that was planed in start of the game)

 

[endtherapture]

We used democracy.

We didn't win.

We lost, everyone lost.

Exactly. If people really wanted to 'beat the trolls' then they shouldn't have had to change the rules of the game to do it. The trolls weren't the ones who resorted to cheating, after all. Thus, team democracy is the team that lost.

Even if it had been all anarchy all the time, the winning move would simply have been not to play if you use that logic. Because Safari Zone had its time limit removed from the start. Anarchy can't have it both ways.

In any case, all the people divorcing anarchy from democracy and vice versa are missing the true value of seeing them as one whole, like a homeless drunk with multiple personalities and schizophrenia who fluctuates between long periods of complete instability and small windows of sobriety/lucidity. I swear, the anarchy/democracy dynamic as one unit is far more beautiful to behold when looked at that way.

Also, there were quite a few bots who both pushed for and at times maintained anarchy. So yes, there were some trolls who cheated.

The problem with democracy mode is that it was added in the middle of the game. And there wasn't any technical reason the game would be unwinnable otherwise, as opposed to the safari zone change (which, as you say, was in the game from the beginning). People just got impatient. Personally, I never really cared whether Twitch Plays Pokemon would ever actually finish the game. Millions of people have beaten the main story in a Pokemon game before. What I did care about was how far they could get purely in 'anarchy' mode. Unless somebody runs the same experiment again, and they're unlikely to get the same turnout, we'll never know. I think all we have learned is that Pokemon by committee is really slow and kinda dull to watch.

I think they should run an Anarchy mode of a game vs a Democracy mode of the game at the same time, and see which one is finished faster. Would be a very interesting experiment.