You know, Satoshi, it's funny. Usually, I read the stuff you write and I agree with it 100%. But what you wrote about archetypes seems to be deserving of a few choice words and a conjecture as to your probable ancestry. Not just because I disagree with you--you're of course entitled to your opinion--but because you use some really bad logic along the way. Vulpix is taking a nap, so I suppose it falls to me to cut your article to ribbons. In order that I may more efficiently counter your major arguments, I'll quote your original article as I go along.

>SATOSHI: Okay, a few more things to rant 'n rave about today
>
>1-Archtype haters
>I have been hearing a LOT of talk about how archtypes are "unoriginal" or
>"going out" or "don't win tournaments." Ha! Bull. That is a lot of bull.

Okay, first of all--I never said that, and anybody who does is an idiot. Archetypes are NOT going out, and they DO win tournements. There, you are correct. However, they ARE unoriginal. On what grounds do I make that claim? Well, let's have our friend Noah Webster take a crack at the problem:

original, adjective, noun. adj.   1. belonging to the beginning; first; earliest.

Okay... maybe by THAT definition, they're original. But read on:

2. new; fresh; novel.

*COUGH* *COUGH* *COUGH* Excuse me. I'm trying to hold back my laughter and nearly suffocating in the process.

3. able to do, make, or think something new; inventive. 

I don't think this definition is germane to the discussion. It certainly doesn't apply to the people who construct and play haymakers.

4. not copied, imitated, or translated from something else; firsthand.

Hmm. At one time, most archetypes probably fit this definition... for about 30 seconds after they were first created. Then someone posted them on the Internet somewhere, and the rest is history.

By these definitions, I think that archetypes neatly fit the definition of "unoriginal," which is:

unoriginal, adjective.    1. not original.

While we're at it, let's look at the definition for "archetype":

archetype, noun.     the original model or pattern from which copies are made, or out of which later forms develop; prototype.

Hmm. Interesting.

Now that I've driven this point into the ground, let's go on with Satoshi's rant.

>These people are the ones that refuse to realize why people use these kind
>of decks; as a result, the decks win, the people lose, and thus continue to
>bash on archtype decks, except now they have the bitter taste of loss
>lingering in threir mouths.

Excuse me? I've beaten a LOT of archetype decks. It's not that they're impossible to beat, it's that they become incredibly boring to play against after a while. Plus, they lower the general index of deck-building skill in this hobby. And I do realize why people use archetypes! Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the time, it's because they want to beat people, and they'd rather simply copy a killer deck from somewhere than use their lone brain cell to come up with something new. (Yes, I know I'm generalizing. So, my friend, are you.)

>Raindance, Haymaker, Damage Swap. This is the stuff that tournaments are
>made of. Now, who here thinks these decks are "unimaginative" or "don't
>win."

Unimaginative? Yes, I would definitely say they are unimaginative. At one point they were imaginative. For most archetypes, this point was somewhere around the time the set with their key cards was released.

"Don't win?" Hardly. They win far too much.

><<surveys number of hands raised in audience>> Aha. Now, how many of
>you same people have ever used these kind of decks?<<all hands go down>>

Umm... Satoshi, don't you see me? I'm still holding my hand up. I've played most archetypes at some time or another. Naturally, I restrict my adventures in them to the world of electrons, simply because I've got better things and people to drop my $$$ on in real life. I've even won an online tourney with a Rain Dance deck. But I'd much rather be playing with my Cinder or Nidoqueen decks.

>Yep. Just as I thought. Everyone who has never tried these decks thinks they
>stink. Typical. I myself used to think haymaker was cheap. Then I tried it
>out. I now love it. Raindance too. I've also tried damage swap. Loved it
>too.

To each his own. Personally, I think I'll stay away from archetypes. If I'm going to ventilate my wallet and/or spend several weeks putting a deck together, I'd like it to be something that I can be proud of and have some fun playing. I don't want to show up with the same haymaker that everybody else and their brother is packing.

>All you archtype haters need to simmer down and take these "ceap decks for
>a test spin. If you continue to argue without having ever tried at least one
>of archtype decks in a tournament, then your argument is one-sided, and
>contains nothing worht arguing over.

Um... Satoshi... didn't you just hear me???

Now, since I have nothing better to do, I'll see what I think of the rest of your article.

>2- Digimon Card Game: Not Worht A Try
>Just Recently, I tried my hand at the Digimon Card Game. I instantly became
>disgusted and frustrated with it. First off, you can only have one of any
>card in your deck. Just singles. Second, the rules that came with the
>starter pack were very vague, and left a lot of unanswered questions. I
>really would not even give the Digimon Card Game a second look. It's not
>worth it. I'm stickin' with pokemon.

Amen. Now that I can agree with. Any game that REQUIRES singles is gonna crash and burn. Take my advice and stay clear of the wreckage.

>3- To Anyone That Owns Or Works On Anti-Pokemon/ Pokemon Hater Websites That
>Happen To Be Reading This Reading This:
>WHY THE HECK ARE YOU ON A POKEMON SITE? YOU LOSERS!!! GO BUY A LIFE, 'CAUSE
>YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE ONE!!!!
><<notices some of the audience is blown out of their chairs do to the
>screaming>> Sorry about that, but I have no patience for anyone who hates an
>innocent trading card game. They desperately need lives.

LOL. Once again, something I can heartily agree with. But, Satoshi.... remember that this is the Internet. These days, you can find people to hate just about anything... and a disturbing number of these people are online. The important thing to remember is that everyone is entitled to free speech. While this may seem a burden at times, the alternative--to silence anyone whom we disagree with--is pernicious and should be approached carefully, if at all. *dances on the grave of the Communications Decency Act*

>SATOSHI: Well, that's all for now!!! Later, everyone!!!

Later, everyone!

-Spike
spike@pojo.com





____________________________________________________________________

For the largest MP3 index on the Web, go to http://mp3.altavista.com

____________________________________________________________________