>>32913682>Chess isn't a video game.No but it's a game. You clearly lack world view, I encourage you to play other games that aren't videogames.
What I'm trying to say is, you're selling CS as the pinnacle of competitive videogames. Even while others may agree, there is no point of comparison at all because of their differing natures. You cannot say CS is the point where you should be comparing games, because it's clearly not.
>No, it's an RPG and RPGs cannot be competitive by nature.Pokemon has demonstrated otherwise because the game was designed in a way it allows for competition to happen - which, let me tell you, is a big undertaking on RPGs.
>The RNG will still be there when the pokemon comes back.But it does not remove your agency entirely. At most it reduces your options, which again it's valid because that's literally how competition happens.
>They still rely on RNGYou're not getting the message across.
RANDOM CHANCE IN A GAME DOES NOT MAKE IT LESS COMPETITIVE.
Look at all the card games (including the playing card games such as poker). Competitions with huge prizes happen every single game. And they work at a fundamentally random nature: shuffle the cards so that they are ordered randomly.
Catan is a board game with a big competitive scenario, and one of its basic mechanics require rolling two six-sided dice.
Do I need to keep going to make my point clear?
