Talk:Pokémon-ex (TCG): Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
m (→Merge with "Pokémon-EX (TCG)": new section) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:As was stated in the news article on Bulbanews, Pokémon-ex and Pokémon EX aren't quite the same. They are two different mechanics, and will have different characteristics. Although they are probably made to shadow the old ones, they aren't exactly equal. ''[[User:Maverick Nate|<sup style="color:#00008B;">'''Maverick'''</sup>]][[User talk:Maverick Nate|<sub style="color:#00008B;">'''Nate'''</sub>]]'' 04:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | :As was stated in the news article on Bulbanews, Pokémon-ex and Pokémon EX aren't quite the same. They are two different mechanics, and will have different characteristics. Although they are probably made to shadow the old ones, they aren't exactly equal. ''[[User:Maverick Nate|<sup style="color:#00008B;">'''Maverick'''</sup>]][[User talk:Maverick Nate|<sub style="color:#00008B;">'''Nate'''</sub>]]'' 04:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
::I'm confused, just how are Pokémon-ex and Pokémon-EX different? They both are hugely overpowered Pokémon with the ability for the opponent to get two prizes when they're knocked out. Just how is that "two different mechanics", aside from a technicality (like cards that can search for Pokémon-ex can't grab a Pokémon-EX? Otherwise, I suggest that these two articles be merged, as they are essentially the same thing; no different than how a regular Oddish and an Erika's Oddish are technically two different Pokémon but are both on the same article, "Oddish (TCG)". -- [[User:Nick15|Nick15]] 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | ::I'm confused, just how are Pokémon-ex and Pokémon-EX different? They both are hugely overpowered Pokémon with the ability for the opponent to get two prizes when they're knocked out. Just how is that "two different mechanics", aside from a technicality (like cards that can search for Pokémon-ex can't grab a Pokémon-EX? Otherwise, I suggest that these two articles be merged, as they are essentially the same thing; no different than how a regular Oddish and an Erika's Oddish are technically two different Pokémon but are both on the same article, "Oddish (TCG)". -- [[User:Nick15|Nick15]] 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | ||
== Merge with "Pokémon-EX (TCG)" == | |||
On the [[Talk:Pokémon-EX (TCG)|Pokémon EX talk page]] I shared my complete rationalization for why these two articles should be merged. There's no reason to double post it here. | |||
THE TL;DR VERSION: There are plenty of articles on Bulbapedia which cover multiple versions of something, with each version of that something being slightly to significantly different from the others, both in form and function AND gameplay, and yet those different versions are on the exact same page, simply because there is something larger than those differences which bind them all together on that single page. I cited [[Oddish (TCG)]], [[Unown (TCG)]] and [[Shining Pokémon (TCG)]] as examples of slightly different cards sharing the same article simply because something binds them together. As such, despite the differences between "Pokémon-ex" and "Pokémon EX" (which I argue are merely cosmetic and thus insignificant), I believe that the two should be merged into a single article, mostly because the "Knock out = two prizes" mechanic is the "larger idea" which bind the two together. | |||
Of course, I welcome anyone who can argue that the status quo is the better option and that there is a perfectly rational reason to keep them separate than to merge them. The thing is, even if I don't believe that there is a rational reason, that doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist. | |||
Thank you for your time! -- [[User:Nick15|Nick15]] 20:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 20:29, 11 December 2011
I've heard they're bringing back Pokemon EX cards in September. --Funicode 02:58, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- As was stated in the news article on Bulbanews, Pokémon-ex and Pokémon EX aren't quite the same. They are two different mechanics, and will have different characteristics. Although they are probably made to shadow the old ones, they aren't exactly equal. MaverickNate 04:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm confused, just how are Pokémon-ex and Pokémon-EX different? They both are hugely overpowered Pokémon with the ability for the opponent to get two prizes when they're knocked out. Just how is that "two different mechanics", aside from a technicality (like cards that can search for Pokémon-ex can't grab a Pokémon-EX? Otherwise, I suggest that these two articles be merged, as they are essentially the same thing; no different than how a regular Oddish and an Erika's Oddish are technically two different Pokémon but are both on the same article, "Oddish (TCG)". -- Nick15 05:20, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Merge with "Pokémon-EX (TCG)"
On the Pokémon EX talk page I shared my complete rationalization for why these two articles should be merged. There's no reason to double post it here.
THE TL;DR VERSION: There are plenty of articles on Bulbapedia which cover multiple versions of something, with each version of that something being slightly to significantly different from the others, both in form and function AND gameplay, and yet those different versions are on the exact same page, simply because there is something larger than those differences which bind them all together on that single page. I cited Oddish (TCG), Unown (TCG) and Shining Pokémon (TCG) as examples of slightly different cards sharing the same article simply because something binds them together. As such, despite the differences between "Pokémon-ex" and "Pokémon EX" (which I argue are merely cosmetic and thus insignificant), I believe that the two should be merged into a single article, mostly because the "Knock out = two prizes" mechanic is the "larger idea" which bind the two together.
Of course, I welcome anyone who can argue that the status quo is the better option and that there is a perfectly rational reason to keep them separate than to merge them. The thing is, even if I don't believe that there is a rational reason, that doesn't mean that reason doesn't exist.
Thank you for your time! -- Nick15 20:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
