In Defense Of the Modern Era of YuGiOh

[bwebbuva]

I'm bored and have nothing to do this Saturday, so I wanted to do a bit of an "In Defense Of" post for the modern era of YuGiOh considering that posts hating on the current format and gameplay of YuGiOh are everywhere. This isn't my solution, but instead a means by which to address common arguments.

My History with YuGiOh

First off, for context: I started YuGiOh in Late 2023 with Duel Links. I got to King of Games with the most mid Blue-Eyes list imaginable and dropped the game shortly afterwards. Then, in early 2024, I got into Master Duel, played for a couple months with Bystial Thunder Dragons and Live Twin Spright, then dropped that game too. Only a couple months ago did I revisit Master Duel and the YuGiOh TCG format via the EDOpro sim, and now I've fallen in love with the game again. I'm not some old veteran, but rather a relatively new player who has found that this card game is much more interesting and fun than most of the others out there, like MTG and Pokemon, and I find that it's precisely because of the things people complain about.

1. "Too Much Special Summoning! Going Second is Impossible! Game is too fast!"

This is probably one of the most common complaints that is leveraged at the game and why many people are turned away from the game. From setting up unbreakable full negate boards to FTKs, these "solitare combos" are what a lot of people tend to see as a huge issue in regards to the power creep that has been so rampant over the course of YuGiOh's lifespan. Instead of games lasting up to 9-10 or so turns, maybe more, you've got games that routinely end on the 2nd or 3rd turn. While this initially seems like a downside, the reality is a lot more nuanced than it initially seems.

A) While the total turn count is low, the amount of meaningful interaction and potential playmaking is way higher.

Both players have way more decisions on the first turn than in most other card games. While in MTG you'll have a more macro level focus on maintaining advantage over the course of a handful of turns thru land buildup, YuGiOh drops the waiting period and lets you go all out immediately with no holds barred. The lack of a conventional resource system allows for way more explosive and interesting plays in the opening turns as opposed to the slow buildup of mana based card games. It also allows for a skilled player to set up sequences that allow them to play through methods of interaction, such as baiting out handtraps or negates through unique lines.

B) Going Second is a unique skill that requires a helluva lot more practice than a traditional line.

Going second is often seen as a death sentence for many players as they wait for their opponent to simply normal summon a crazy 1 card starter then set up an unbeatable board. I held this mindset for a while when I was a brand new player, mainly because so many decks were able to do so much on turn 1 that it felt insurmountable. But going second isn't the death sentence most players think it is; it just takes a lot more skill than executing a pre-planned combo. Each endboard has its own strengths and weaknesses, and a knowledge of how to play through disruption and eventually find your way through to OTKing or establishing your own endboard is a skill that is very valuable for learning to tackle the top of the ladder. Ignoring the obvious roach in the room (which should be banned, semi limit is a troll), you need to carefully manage your cards to bait out disruption and eventually find a hole in your opponent's armor. Games that look like a complete blowout may actually be way closer than they first appear if you use the resources you have to make a sequence that forces out negates and allows for you to change the tides of the duel. I hate for this to boil down to "skill issue", but there's a reason that the top players of this game can consistently perform well even in the face of the coin flip forcing them to go second 50% of the time. If this truly was a game of who goes first, everyone would have a winrate of 50%. but that's not how it is. If you always lose going second, it might be time to re-evaluate your gameplan or re-evaluate your deck. Speaking of...

2. "Meta Meta Meta! This deck is unbeatable and it's everywhere!"

The meta is a bit of a contentious point in the modern era, with terms like "Tier 0" being thrown about without care. Many people dislike a game having a meta, as it means that games become stale and/or boring when everyone just uses the best thing available. While there is merit in this claim, it is often blown way out of proportion, as the meta is not unbeatable as a "Tier 0" strategy outside of a few fringe exceptions like full power Ishizu Tear (which still had matchups that were at the very least in contention with it). Here's a few tips to help you with dealing with the meta:

A) Play a functional deck

I'm sorry Timmy, Dark Magician Slifer isn't gonna be relevant for dealing with modern decks. You don't need to be playing the best decks, but you certainly shouldn't be playing the worst decks. Don't build a deck like Brick-Eyes or Obelisk gaming and expect to win consistently. Instead, look around for decklists, maybe even check your opponent's list and see what they're running. Maybe they might have something cool that you like. There's no shame in netdecking, especially if you're new and/or completely lost on what decks are even usable.

B) Slot in tech cards for common meta decks

Here's where everyone using meta becomes a positive for you. Let's take the recent Tenpai experience on Master Duel for an example. First off, it's a viable going second deck that uses unique quick synchro plays and high damage to make a modern battle phase focused deck, which is quite cool and further defeats this idea of "go first, auto win", but aside from that, Tenpai has a few critical weaknesses that severely cripple it. Cards like Threatening Roar completely halt its gameplan and allow you to rebuild and obliterate the opponent on turn 3 due to Tenpai's lackluster endboard (unless they have some weird nonsense, but that's just another example of how you can experiment with deckbuilding to beat the meta or counters to the meta). The meta is almost never oppressive enough to warrant Tier 0 complaints.

C) The meta is a lot more diverse than you think

Especially at ranks below Master, you are statistically unlikely to run into multiple matches against the same deck. The human brain tends to remember times when you randomly got slotted against Tenpai 4 games in a row rather than the normal times where you end up getting a nice variety of opponents, like a Lab player here or a Runick player there or a Dragon Link player over there. Rogue strategies may not be tiered but they are still very much usable, and with a good pilot who understands deckbuilding principles and knows their deck inside and out, they can easily push to the top with something a little on the obscure side. Overall, the meta complaints feel drastically overblown.

3. "Handtraps! They suck! Decks being 50% handtraps sucks!"

This'll be the last point I'll address, at least in regards to this defense. I have a few more ideas but I wanted to cover some of the biggest complaints first rather than going into nitpicks. This'll cover another divisive topic in the community, mainly in regards to decks slotting in a ton of non engine handtraps rather than cards that "synergize" with the deck. Ash Blossom is the common example, being basically omnipresent in every deck at a solid 3 copies. But before I get around to defending handtraps as a whole, I'll do one quick concession:

Z) THE ROACH NEEDS TO GO

Maxx "C". This roach. It needs to be banned. It is the main reason why I enjoy TCG format, because there they had the sense to ban the roach. No, it does not "help going second players get to play", because it's equally likely to just be slapped on top of an established endboard. No, it is not "healthy because it keeps special summoning in check", that's like saying you should be able to glue chess pieces to the board because it keeps their movement in check. The Maxx "C" minigame makes it so 9 of your deckslots are predetermined before the game even begins: 3 Maxx "C" for free wins, 3 Ash because its a good handtrap + stops Maxx "C", 2 Called By because it stops Maxx "C", and 1 Crossout Designator because it stops Maxx "C". This is ridiculous. If Maxx "C" resolves, there is almost no skill besides sequencing in a way that minimizes draws, but that barely matters if your opponent is able to get a ton of card advantage anyway and you end on a suboptimal board. It's even worse for the going second player; they establish a board then slap Maxx "C" to draw into extra handtraps as you try and navigate through their interaction, just for them to draw into an Effect Veiler via Maxx "C" that ruins your gameplan. It's awful. Ban Maxx "C", especially now that the Mulcharmies are an infinitely healthier replacement.

Ahem, anyway... got a bit off track. Aside from Maxx "C", I thoroughly believe all other handtraps aside from a few fringe cases like Shifter are healthy for the game for a variety of reasons.

A) Handtraps make going second more interesting

If you go second with handtraps in hand, you're presented with an interesting puzzle in regards to reading your opponent and understanding their deck. You only have a limited number of handtraps to stop your opponent, so you're presented with a variety of interesting choices: do you Imperm their normal summon or wait for a potentially more impactful extender? Do you Ash their first searcher or wait to see if they have something stronger in hand? When do you Nibiru? Do you decide to not Ash their search so you can Droll them instead? Do you play into Triple Tactics cards or decide to refrain from doing so? It's a very unique mindgame that further increases the level of interaction per turn, practically stuffing 4-5 turns worth of interaction and playmaking into a single turn. It's great stuff.

B) Handtraps also allow for unique ways of endboard interaction

Even if you draw something like an Imperm for turn, you still get plenty of value. Perhaps your opponent would be able to play through a ton of interaction; maybe you can hold those handtraps for your own turn and use them as either discard fodder for powerful cards like Forbidden Droplet or as a means to negate a powerful monster like Imperming an Apollousa. There's plenty of interesting plays you can make with handtraps and a lot of skill expression behind using them, so if they feel weak to you, try approaching your handtrap usage a bit differently. Don't always Ash the first searcher.

A Few Additional Concessions

YuGiOh is by no means perfect. This isn't meant to say that YuGiOh is a flawless masterpiece; it has it's flaws, and they can be very brutal flaws. I figure I may as well address them in this section before getting around to my conclusion.

FTKs and Floodgates

Why does Gimmick Puppet exist? Why do Barrier Statues exist? Why does Anti-Spell/Skill Drain exist? These are cards that fundamentally destroy what YuGiOh is. As silly as some first turn negate endboards can look, there's still room for nuanced interaction. There is no nuance for "do you have the Imperm to stop your opponent's FTK?" or "Did you open Duster to clear Skill Drain/TCBOO/Rivalry etc.?" As much as Stun players like to pretend they're "doing the same thing as these other players", they fundamentally are not; floodgates stop YuGiOh from being played altogether while a board with a few negates allows for sequencing and outplay on both sides to best make use of their limited resources. Simply put, Stun is a fundamentally flawed deck style that only further perpetuates misinformation about how the game works, and FTKs (while sometimes cool) also take away from the real back and forth that is very much present in modern YuGiOh.

UR Bloat

A Master Duel specific problem, but this also applies to the TCG, perhaps even moreso due to the ludicrous prices of cards over there. Many decent to strong decks feel so overwhelmingly bloated with URs that it makes the crafting or pulling process way more obnoxious than it should be. Sure, saving is a nice way to get what you want, but that means there's less room for experimentation; crafting a rogue deck means you have way less resources to play a meta deck, and vice versa. If the system had less URs and more ways to get UR dust, I feel like the variety some people lack would be addressed, as making multiple decks wouldn't be such a hassle anymore.

Conclusion

I fell in love with YuGiOh in late 2024 for what the game is, not what the game was. I didn't grow up watching the show, hell I still don't even know much about the anime besides what Pot of Greed does. I understand YuGiOh can be hard to get into, and its a difficult journey to learn what deck works for you and how you like to enjoy the game, but I find it sad that many people just dismiss the current era of YuGiOh as a coin flip simulator where if you flip heads you get to play solitare but with dragons. The game is so much more than that, and if you really give it a shot, taking off those rose tinted DM era sunglasses and seeing the game for the beautifully unbalanced, completely insane, fast paced, and downright absurd card game that it is, I feel you'll enjoy it way more than you think.

Try a meta deck. Try a rogue deck. Try a silly idea you came up with at 3am on a Tuesday. Experiment with the thousands of cards this game has or play with a list that you found that resonates with you. If you learn this game, it'll be rewarding in a unique way that is unimaginable. So whether you're a brand new player thinking about giving this intimidating game a shot, or a nostalgic DM era veteran who is curious about what this game has evolved into, come on and give the game a shot.

Because it's time to D-D-D-D-D-D-D-DUEL!

Thanks for reading to the end. That is, if you did read to the end; if you skipped it, I guess I understand too. But if you make a complaint that I addressed here, I will laugh at you. You have been warned.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by Pastor Shotty McBangJump:

It can get disheartening at times, like when you're failing to find success with a beloved deck, or getting blown out by bad going-second hands against combo decks, but when the duels get good, they get REALLY good.

Those good duels are few and far between, but you're right that the good duels are really good.

Those 1 out of every 10-20 duels that are genuinely fun, combined with just enjoying collecting cards and making decks out of the really neat archetypes in the game, keep me coming back despite everything.

[e-dood]

Why would I bother when it's clear you don't care and are not going to listen?

Because when you make such claims, you might actually have to back them up.

Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed.

Most don't "accept" the state of the game, they blindly defend it.

Who?

There's also less turns on average, more summoning in a given turn, more negates, more reliance on crutches like Ash and Maxx, etc. etc. But yeah faster is among one of the many difference between modern Yugioh and, well, Yugioh Yugioh.

Less turns means the game is faster.

And acting like staples were never really a thing is rather silly.

Remember, MST was limited for a time as it was a meta and very used card in the past.

[Papa Shekels]

Originally posted by Kaulu:

I'm actually gonna side with Zephyr on this one. Tone aside, he's highlighting the main flaw with the position OP has put forward. OP is basically saying to people to play to win over playing what they enjoy, and to derive enjoyment from winning. There is nothing wrong with that view, but it is far from the only way for one to approach yugioh. Some people have been playing for multiple years, if not decades and have a host of decks they love to play for whatever reason.

It's perfectly fine to enjoy the game how you want. The only real problem is when people who do not like the primary way of playing the game refuse to take accountability for the consequences of their actions (or lack thereof), or demonize those who do. I stopped playing my toon deck lately because the archetype sucks and playing a deck that sucks can be frustrating on the competitive ladder. But when I do play it again, I know that constantly losing with it is on me because I chose to play my fun deck over one that achieves results. I also don't go around attacking my opponents who aren't playing decks as garbage as toons, since it's their right to play what they enjoy no matter where they derive enjoyment from in the game. It's people who can not comprehend these things that this post is addressed to, and as I mentioned earlier neither of those groups seems likely to either read this or actually take any of it to heart. Exhibit A, the argument that just occurred a few hours ago.

Granted, I did not read the entire OP and only skimmed the sections. Maybe it comes off more heavy-handed than what I interpreted

[Merilirem]

I would like to say that multiple turns are more enjoyable even with the same interactions. If we do 10 moves in 1 turn its worse than 2 moves each turn for 5.

[e-dood]

Originally posted by Merilirem:

I would like to say that multiple turns are more enjoyable even with the same interactions. If we do 10 moves in 1 turn its worse than 2 moves each turn for 5.

Some of my favorite duels have been absolute slug fests with modern decks.

One was my Icejade Tear deck vs a Branded deck that was about eight or so turns and another was my link only Traptrix Rangaraika vs a Centurion deck that lasted 11 or so turns.

But both games did need both players to set up the board. So I do agree with the sentiment.

I think a big problem is that Konami just made stupidly strong and overly generic boss monsters that kneecap boss monster design.

Originally posted by Papa Shekels:

Originally posted by Kaulu:

I'm actually gonna side with Zephyr on this one. Tone aside, he's highlighting the main flaw with the position OP has put forward. OP is basically saying to people to play to win over playing what they enjoy, and to derive enjoyment from winning. There is nothing wrong with that view, but it is far from the only way for one to approach yugioh. Some people have been playing for multiple years, if not decades and have a host of decks they love to play for whatever reason.

It's perfectly fine to enjoy the game how you want. The only real problem is when people who do not like the primary way of playing the game refuse to take accountability for the consequences of their actions (or lack thereof), or demonize those who do. I stopped playing my toon deck lately because the archetype sucks and playing a deck that sucks can be frustrating on the competitive ladder. But when I do play it again, I know that constantly losing with it is on me because I chose to play my fun deck over one that achieves results. I also don't go around attacking my opponents who aren't playing decks as garbage as toons, since it's their right to play what they enjoy no matter where they derive enjoyment from in the game. It's people who can not comprehend these things that this post is addressed to, and as I mentioned earlier neither of those groups seems likely to either read this or actually take any of it to heart. Exhibit A, the argument that just occurred a few hours ago.

Granted, I did not read the entire OP and only skimmed the sections. Maybe it comes off more heavy-handed than what I interpreted

Pretty much how I feel when I play certain decks that I know are bad.

Still like Amazoness no matter how mid it really is.

[bwebbuva]

Suppose I could clear up a point or two regarding the more level headed critiques of my argument here

1. In regards to how I described meta strategies and other such decks in section 2; I think it's perfectly fine to play whatever deck you'd like to use. I just don't think it's right to actively pick a weak deck and complain about strong decks. If you're fine with taking losses more often to play a deck you thoroughly enjoy more than anything else, more power to you. It's not a bad thing to play a deck you like even if it's not strong, I just tend to get a bit overly upset over low tier heroes who jump into lava and complain that it's too hot.

2. My prior background as a new player to the game wasn't meant to devalue veteran standpoints but to instead use myself as an example as to someone who can come into this complicated game and find enjoyment in what it is now with a fresh mind. Me being a new player doesn't make my view any better or worse than anyone else's, I just feel like it was an important thing to mention since I've heard so much about YuGiOh being a nightmare for new players, and I wanted to offer my own experience as a counterexample of sorts.

3. The idealized target audience for this post wasn't advanced players but instead new (in regards to the modern era) players who find themselves either dismissing the game because of all the new stuff or players who are trying to find a way to enjoy the game but just aren't really clicking with the game's mechanics and systems. This post was moreso meant as a "give this game a chance" rather than "this is the best game ever".

[76561199378662608]

Originally posted by bwebbuva:

Suppose I could clear up a point or two regarding the more level headed critiques of my argument here

1. In regards to how I described meta strategies and other such decks in section 2; I think it's perfectly fine to play whatever deck you'd like to use. I just don't think it's right to actively pick a weak deck and complain about strong decks. If you're fine with taking losses more often to play a deck you thoroughly enjoy more than anything else, more power to you. It's not a bad thing to play a deck you like even if it's not strong, I just tend to get a bit overly upset over low tier heroes who jump into lava and complain that it's too hot.

2. My prior background as a new player to the game wasn't meant to devalue veteran standpoints but to instead use myself as an example as to someone who can come into this complicated game and find enjoyment in what it is now with a fresh mind. Me being a new player doesn't make my view any better or worse than anyone else's, I just feel like it was an important thing to mention since I've heard so much about YuGiOh being a nightmare for new players, and I wanted to offer my own experience as a counterexample of sorts.

3. The idealized target audience for this post wasn't advanced players but instead new (in regards to the modern era) players who find themselves either dismissing the game because of all the new stuff or players who are trying to find a way to enjoy the game but just aren't really clicking with the game's mechanics and systems. This post was moreso meant as a "give this game a chance" rather than "this is the best game ever".

[Silyon]

Originally posted by Merilirem:

I would like to say that multiple turns are more enjoyable even with the same interactions. If we do 10 moves in 1 turn its worse than 2 moves each turn for 5.

I'm inclined to agree, mostly because such turns are easier to follow and you have less mental overhead during them. Either can be enjoyable though, it's just a question of if the two decks are comparable enough in strength to push back against eachother. Unfortunately it's much easier to make a weak deck than a strong one, thereby upsetting the balance of power between the decks involved and making for an unsatisfying blowout.

Originally posted by Papa Shekels:

Originally posted by Kaulu:

I'm actually gonna side with Zephyr on this one. Tone aside, he's highlighting the main flaw with the position OP has put forward. OP is basically saying to people to play to win over playing what they enjoy, and to derive enjoyment from winning. There is nothing wrong with that view, but it is far from the only way for one to approach yugioh. Some people have been playing for multiple years, if not decades and have a host of decks they love to play for whatever reason.

It's perfectly fine to enjoy the game how you want. The only real problem is when people who do not like the primary way of playing the game refuse to take accountability for the consequences of their actions (or lack thereof), or demonize those who do. I stopped playing my toon deck lately because the archetype sucks and playing a deck that sucks can be frustrating on the competitive ladder. But when I do play it again, I know that constantly losing with it is on me because I chose to play my fun deck over one that achieves results. I also don't go around attacking my opponents who aren't playing decks as garbage as toons, since it's their right to play what they enjoy no matter where they derive enjoyment from in the game. It's people who can not comprehend these things that this post is addressed to, and as I mentioned earlier neither of those groups seems likely to either read this or actually take any of it to heart. Exhibit A, the argument that just occurred a few hours ago.

Granted, I did not read the entire OP and only skimmed the sections. Maybe it comes off more heavy-handed than what I interpreted

I dunno, I skimmed through OP again and didn't see anything overly focused on winning like "You must do this or you'll never win". The closest thing that comes to that is section 2.A, where they start talking about "Functional Decks" in a vaguely aggressive tone. I read that as more emphasizing a hard truth, that it's very easy to make a massively underpowered deck relying on tactics and strategies that are so massively outdated you cannot stand a reasonable chance of victory. Such decks need to either receive massive overhauls or be discarded altogether, but even if you discard it that doesn't have to mean you abandon the archetype.

I'm an example of this, I've always played Blue-Eyes from 2004's Chaos format onward. I've spent a ton of time and effort working on optimizing the hell out of the deck to the point where it's capable of dealing with a number of other modern decks, and to get there I've researched supporting engines, looked for generic staples and silver bullets to notable problems, and tweaked around Extra deck picks to work against whatever the meta's doing at the time. I've learned new strategies as they came up and made judgement calls on whether I could integrate them or not. When I get frustrated with my win record, I generally (I'm not perfect) don't blame the other people or unfair tactics and instead put my energy into figuring out what I can actually do about the problem I ran into.

Far as I can tell, This isn't what OP seems to be talking about. They're talking about people that are still trying to make Ultimate Dragon -> Defusion OTK work in 2025 and refuse to so much as look at new cards or techniques, instead painting them with the generic brush of "Cheater tactics" and refusing to admit the game's moved on from wherever their nostalgia has left them.

[Astrallight]

People can play whatever they like. But in the end ranked is only full of meta/morden decks that thier old school deck wont stand a chance against. Thats why I moved away from old school decks and started playing decks that can play on opponents turn aswell. My fun is being able to play aswell. Not just being a spectator.

Thats just the harsh reality people need to learn. If people care about winning alot then thier old school deck is not the solution anymore. Then they need to move away from old outdated decks to an updated deck that can fight back. If people then still choose to only play old school and get mad they lose alot against meta then its thier own fault for not adapting to something better.

[Terminal Desolation]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

What do you get out of beating this strawman you invented? Of the 3 main points you address, only one is ever used legitimately by people criticizing modern yugioh, and it's just a bad point that has been argued to death already BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

the irony of you posting this and only a few hours later one of our regulars posting arguing for every single one of these points is hilarious, do you want me to grab quotes from other threads too or has Zephyr single-handedly destroyed your confidence in your "argument" that this is just a strawman?

Originally posted by Zephyr:

and FTKs (while sometimes cool) also take away from the real back and forth that is very much present in modern YuGiOh.

I agree with one exception: Exodia FTK is alright, it's inconsistent and actually nice to see over all the other FTK decks that are more common.

Leave it to Zephyr to have a take that is literally "Every deck that uses this strategy is bad and shouldn't be allowed except mine."

[Papa Shekels]

Originally posted by Terminal Desolation:

Originally posted by Zephyr:

I agree with one exception: Exodia FTK is alright, it's inconsistent and actually nice to see over all the other FTK decks that are more common.

Leave it to Zephyr to have a take that is literally "Every deck that uses this strategy is bad and shouldn't be allowed except mine."

There is no way that anybody is defending the FTK that is, unlike a majority of the time this term is used in hyperbole, literally solitaire. The whole point is to pretend your opponent doesn't exist and find a way to draw through your entire deck. At least most other FTKs interact with your opponent in *some* capacity by attacking their life points or deck, not just their time. It's also one of the most common boomer decks you see played, other than burn and 60-card dm/blue eyes/egyptian god piles. If being inconsistent and bad is an excuse for anything, then I guess we should bring back mind augus as well while we're at it

[Soji]

I think the most important part that most people you claim the post is for is probably going to be the part about meta. I feel like for years its always been the thing people jump to immediately to dismiss things outright. Like you said "Many people dislike a game having a meta, as it means that games become stale and/or boring when everyone just uses the best thing available" This isn't even the definition exactly of what meta is, nor does a game having a meta immediately mean its just a hyper optimized "unfun" experience but it's how the term is used these days, to refer to the best of something at any given time. People have a strange mental block to think if there's the best of something it means that nothing else could ever develop and they stifle all thought and ingenuity about it from there on. Truthfully games will always have a meta, everything that is a game does. It's only when its used in a pvp game that people throw negative connotations on the idea. I don't think those types of people really care about nuance when it comes to this discussion because they just kinda throw it all out of the water the second 'meta' gets used. "I lost because he's playing meta characters/Of course I lost, the meta strategy completely counters me" Just no type of introspection on anything other than laying all blame on 'the meta' Almost everything you talk about from 'too many special summons' to 'handtraps ruin the game' are all going to be traced back to 'meta is everywhere'. Until they can get past that mental block the rest of this post is just moot. Although I do think it's a pretty good write up fwiw OP.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Terminal Desolation:

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

What do you get out of beating this strawman you invented? Of the 3 main points you address, only one is ever used legitimately by people criticizing modern yugioh, and it's just a bad point that has been argued to death already BY YOUR OWN ADMISSION.

the irony of you posting this and only a few hours later one of our regulars posting arguing for every single one of these points is hilarious, do you want me to grab quotes from other threads too or has Zephyr single-handedly destroyed your confidence in your "argument" that this is just a strawman?

You do realize that this means you're claiming their arguments are valid and should be taken seriously, right?

I don't know this person, but you're speaking as if you do. So I'll leave that to your judgment. Is this person you're talking about a reasonable person saying reasonable things for the purpose of reaching an accurate understanding of the topic?

[G3]

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

You do realize that this means you're claiming their arguments are valid and should be taken seriously, right?

You don't have to be reasonable to exist.

Flat Earthers are real.

[DontMisunderstand]

Originally posted by Silyon:

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

Taking an unserious argument as if it is serious is in fact intentionally weakening the stance.

Personally having seen something doesn't somehow automatically mean the other person was a serious person actually trying to make a point.

Point 1 where I disagree with your assessment. The only person capable of deciding if any given argument or rant is a serious one is the original poster of the argument in the first place. You, me, or anyone else can choose to treat the post seriously or not, but that doesn't change the author's intent and in either case the intent doesn't factor into the worth of the ensuing discussion in any case. Plenty of fruitful discussions have followed in the wake of someone's trollish rant, even certain notorious and well-known trolls that make a return every few weeks.

So I remain confused on how exactly this person's post, which is taking the opposite stance in response to the usual flood of angry-sounding rants by assorted people, is any different from other such posts. Would you be making such an argument against it if it was buried on page 3 or 4 of a topic rather than the original post? If no, why is it different then?

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

The point about the game being too fast isn't used by people who dislike modern Yugioh, it's an argument used by people who DO like it as justification for why it's actually good. Pretending that arguments YOUR SIDE uses are actually things the opposing side says is a strawman.

This isn't a one-sided point like you're trying to make it out to be. You're saying that there are people in favor of the high speed of the game and quote it as reason to play this game over it's competitors. You're willfully ignoring the equal (or greater) number of people complaining about "coinflip games", "20 minute combos", and "Summon Spam", each of which are negative comments about the speed of the game and how much is capable of getting done in the span of a single turn. All there is to say on this one, your selection bias is showing.

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

The meta is likewise not a point being referenced by people who hate the modern game's flow. It's primarily the complaint of people who DO like modern Yugioh, as should be obvious by the fact that it's talking about specific metagame interactions that require an indepth knowledge and understanding of the meta. If they're already engaging with the game to that extent, their stance cannot be against that game. There's at minimum a nuance there that is being ignored for the purpose of winning an argument against an enemy that doesn't actually exist. A strawman, one might say.

Said "enemy" (such a loaded term, use "Opponent" instead) does exist and the evidence of their existence is self-evident. The only leg you have to stand on is arbitrary dismissal of those topics that would disagree with you, which is in turn an example of false generalization (Or cherry-picking evidence, if you prefer).

I agree, arguments involving "The Meta" should necessarily involve those deeply invested into the game as it stands and leave newer or inexperienced players out of the discussion entirely. In reality it doesn't work that way, one of the first questions most new players approach veterans with is "What is meta?", often because they're sick of losing and want to start winning. They then proceed to attempt to build a "meta" deck and preform better for a time because the basic performance of the deck itself is often greatly improved over whatever they were running. This creates the commonly-held belief among newer players that you have to play a Meta deck in order to compete in this game, which we both know is abjectly false. It's only after brushing with "the meta" and it's associated trial-by-fire that those players that stick it out long enough to become skilled even start to branch out into their own pet decks or gimmicks. This, while certainly not ideal, is the real progression most players end up having with Yugioh.

So no, the Meta is of prime importance to new players no matter how much veterans choose to either downplay it or advocate for it. They use meta picks to excuse their lack of skill while it develops (or not, as the case may be), and those that elect to announce their departure from the game always end up quoting "The Meta" or various aspects of the game's flow like "Long combos" as specific reasons for doing so.

Originally posted by DontMisunderstand:

These are the things I've been saying. I know from our previous interactions that you're capable of parsing this level of nuance. Don't be obtuse, please.

Disagreement does not mean I'm being obtuse. I find you're using the Strawman argument incorrectly by reason of your own cherry-picked biases, which omit the tens of times such arguments have arisen in the past week alone. You wish to dismiss those times as being "invalid" by some nonobjective personal measure that I don't abide by. Naturally you disagree. What more is there to say?

I disagree with your assertion that it's impossible to detect tone and intent. To reach this conclusion, I would point to the fact that pretty much every aspect of human society is centered around the fact that it's simply assumed that all people can do this.

Yeah. Reasonable people can have reasonable discussions stemming from unreasonable origins. That doesn't make those unreasonable origins reasonable.

I think dissecting how people engage with forum discussions is too far off-topic for my liking. Whether people do or don't find a post, and how much energy they're willing to put into engaging with the full thread isn't exactly connected to the validity of the arguments the original post puts forth, nor the arguments against it.

You do have a valid point about the connection between special summon spam arguments. While it's definitely true that people claim it is what gives modern yugioh its identity and serves as the core of its appeal, there are also people who take the ramifications of that assertion as a negative rather than a positive. I suppose the subtle differences between the two were more obvious and apparent to my mind than they actually are. That difference being that the two are saying exactly opposite things. The complaint from people that dislike modern Yugioh is not that special summon spam makes the game too fast... it's that it makes the game too slow. The people saying the game is fast are the ones arguing that this is a good thing, and the people saying it's a bad thing are arguing that it makes the game slow to a crawl. That's the point I was trying to get at. You are right, both sides are talking about the ramifications of one detail, but they are arguing exactly opposite conclusions from the same data. The detail I was focusing on is that the OP is asserting the conclusions of one side as the conclusions of the other.

The literal definition of the word "enemy" is "a person who is opposed to someone or something". In this exact context, enemy and opponent mean the exact same thing. Things like this are why I asked you not to be obtuse. Because you definitely knew that already.

The existence of this "enemy" is not self-evident. That's literally what makes a strawman fallacious. Making assertions doesn't make them true by default.

Yes, this is a fair point. Most of the time, people talking about "meta" don't actually understand what the term means. For exactly the reasons brought up in the previous paragraph... people saying a thing doesn't make it true. But that doesn't stop them from saying it. In this way, even people who don't know the meta OR the meaning of the term do in fact speak on the meta regularly. In that sense, I was completely incorrect. New players do in fact often speak on the term "meta". People actually speaking about the meta might only be the people already invested, but that doesn't mean every conversation involving the term involves only those people.

I agree. The phrase "being obtuse" has a specific meaning. In this context, feigning ignorance in order to make your points. You've done that multiple times in this exchange.

What are my biases here? Can you actually infer them from what I've said? Or have you simply made an assumption solely based upon the conclusions I reach without actually bothering to understand the perspective they come from or the logic used to reach them? I'll give you a hint in the hopes that we can reach an understanding: I like modern yugioh.