3 ms·

I could go many ways with that but I guess it depends how much we assume about the a.i. However, although the card game came out after the video game, I actual

I could go many ways with that but I guess it depends how much we assume about the a.i. However, although the card game came out after the video game, I actually have thought about this pokemon a.i. a fair amount and I think its fair to same that the video game is in many ways a visualization of a card game and the traversing of the map isn't as critical as it seems. We know that the video game can't be beat without collecting x amount of Pokemon, so my thoughts on which heuristic would be to start there before even worrying about the battle system. Consider how a game of starcraft works, is a pokemon battle system more advanced than starcraft a.i.? I don't think so but open to being convinced otherwise.

thrower123 8y ago
The card game is orders of magnitude more complicated than the video game battles - all that they are is very vanilla JRPG combat with a couple layers of rock, paper, scissors mechanics. One could probably write a finite state machine that would win 95% of the time in a couple hours. On the grand scale, Pokemon is essentially unloseable, as you can never really paint yourself into a corner you can't get out of. I've seen stupid challenge playthroughs where more than half the game can be beaten with only a single Magikarp... There are only a handful of unique encounters. Pure bloody-minded grinding will always see you through.
- ziaddotcom 8y ago
  For actual gameplay, I said A card game, not the card game. Had something like war in mind. Although, I see how that may have been confusing as I made the connection of the card game version in the sentence before.