Talk:Yu-Gi-Oh

From 1d4chan

Theres 3 phases you go through as a player: Casual (move to the next tier when you realise that winning is fun) Try-hard (most people here suck at the game, move up when you realise that you suck and the game is shit) Disillusioned, once you're here you can: 1. Quit (the real winners) 2. Become a "vendor", TO or judge 3. Continue playing, but make sure you tell people every week how shit the game is and that you only come to locals because you win and its free money 4. Move to game of choice and repeat cycle

Pretty much all card game players i guess


I'm very tempted to put this in its own category called 'Children's Card Games'. --Myomoto 21:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Tempted? That's where it belongs. That or "Card Games for Annoying Social Outcast Weeaboo Faggots". --Anonymous 01:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I made it more accurate --Anonymous 08:23, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Ohhai, I added an 'Intresting Notes' section with 3 points about yu gi oh, GX and Dan Green - Lolistick, Jan 10th

Everything on this page and its discussion is full of derprage and butthurt. --FlintTD 03:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


so why is yu gi oh seen as so shitty, is it because of the animu or the game itself?

Both. The TCG is horribly broken (even more so than M:TG), and the animu is all about friendship and card games being awesome and shit, with card games dragged out over 2-4 episodes (even worse than DBZ).Biggus Berrus 11:53, 3 October 2011 (BST)
GX and 5Ds were actually pretty good though.

If you're going to just say how shitty the game is, come up with a good list of reasons. Like: barely playtested, too many cards that only work with one other very specific card, many cards that come out are either blatantly better or blatantly worse versions of others, cards that prove to be really good often get banned or restricted immediately, too many cookie-cutter deck builds do to how limited certain card interactions are, the DBZ CCG shows more creativity and balance in deck building than this, etc. And then maybe list some good points, like the fact it has a fuckhuge card library.

i think this article should be rewritten as to at least include reasons like above, also the general rules of the game (such as the pokemon article) should be included
Haters gonna hate. The game is fine but it's pay to win unless you play in tournaments and use the very best/latest card. It has a "fuckhuge card library" of over 6,000 cards but only 4% of those are playable. Yu-gi-oh is unique as little children can have great fun with it, while if you bust the bank for your "Maxx C"-s, "Tour Guide from the Underworld"-s and "Black Luster Soldier - Envoy from the Beginning"-s it becomes a skill based competitive game. -- Yme-Loc 13:42, 13 June 2012 (BST)
I mostly agree with the above, (reasonable game, fucking huge balance issues), but honestly, the only skill involved is deck construction. If your deck sucks, you lose, full stop. If your deck rocks, you win, full stop. The games are very much predetermined once you get past deck construction and into gameplay. 143.92.1.33 04:47, 20 June 2012 (BST)
The "Always Win/Lose, no exception" thing isn't as bad as it used to be. Especially if you don't play seriously. I've built a few decks that work on a non-tournament level but wouldn't last more than one round against "professionals". I think it's also worth noting that despite its huge library having only a handful of playable cards, that handful frequently changes once someone finds a new combo, and that the main problem is so many people who play the game seriously deck-spork that last tourney winner. This year's winning deck is most likely designed to beat last year's winning deck. There are still definitely a LOT of balance issues, since any vanilla card with less than 1900 attack is nigh-on useless, and most good effect cards released in the last two years are designed to only work with one or two other cards. --King Starscream 17:15, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

yugioh has no place on tg[edit]

its a game made from a non /tg approved anime, so sincerely go back to /a--XToverdrive (talk) 00:27, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

It's a tabletop game. Sorry but your argument ends there. -- Triacom (talk) 00:29, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
Cry more. I think i'll start playing just for spite. --78.189.235.179 11:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

wrote a "in reality section"[edit]

you cannot blank delete it as its written in all seriousness. ill happily write on the magic page what sucks about magic if you are that angry about me contributing and criticisng your game while backing up these claims. sincerly --Nicol bolas (talk) 02:48, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe write correctly so it has a better chance of staying. It would have to be fixed even if people wanted it to stay, and they do not.--Namefag (talk) 03:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

So what's really wrong with it besides the spelling/grammar? It does seem to go over some of the issues I've heard about (and mentioning some I hadn't), is that just it? -- Triacom (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that after fixing the text to not be a massive pile of shit it should be split up and divided between the headers to make it more consistent with the page as is. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Lot of inaccuracy (>implying there haven't multiple internal storylines that qualify as fluff, for one), plus attempts to pothole mostly unrelated links. That they keep linking 'Awesome' to the game losing half its userbase plants this firmly into personal problems territory for me (that and the overall 'bluhhh everything about ygo is baaaaaad y u no exactly like magic' vibe). --69.115.135.209 06:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

>this guy writes a serious section for a card game providing criticism. >gets deleted due to players being butthurt. i agree with Bolas that you guys are a bunch of manchildren who can't take criticism. im gonna restore it, seriously dont delete it and take some criticism for once.--203.122.213.20 02:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

>sockpuppeting this blatantly >reverting without making the writing sound any less butthurt >ignoring the criticism actually incorporated into the article

This is an unnecessarily elaborate pretense if I've ever seen one. --69.115.135.209 18:31, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

so let me get this straight, you yugioh players are revising away this guys article that he wrote in all seriousness criticizing your game, which he then backs up by saying he will happily write an article criticizing his game that he plays, and you delete it because you cant take fucking criticism? how big of a bunch of fucking manbabies can you people get? maybe you should learn to harden the fuck up and take someones criticism on a wiki instead of white knight defending a game intended for bloody 8-12 year olds. im certainly putting it back in.--118.210.169.12 01:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

It still reads like a 12-year-old wrote it.--Namefag (talk) 01:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I like how they have the nerve to criticize us for being manbabies in light of the above (also presuming we even play; I in particular haven't done so since Wind-Up was still a thing). --72.89.210.76 05:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

BTW, you can stop sockpuppeting now, it's still transparent as shit (protip: your lack of an edit history in this case is a dead giveaway). --72.89.210.76 06:23, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

News flash to the anon who totally isn't Bolas complaining about constant revision[edit]

I'm gonna stop memeing and be remotely srs and/or civil for a moment:

This is a wiki.

Wikis by design leave their pages open to revision, with the line between what is and isn't acceptable determined by whoever runs said wiki. In the case of this one, whose standards are relatively lax as far as wikis go, that paragraph you keep trying to salvage, in addition to still reading like an MTG-worshipping saltfest (and I say this as someone indifferent to the latter game at worst), is poorly written and structured.

If not for the aforementioned fact and how it sounds halfway like petulant whining, whose childishness is then projected onto the people who keep trying to fix said nonsense, this would not matter as much. It also helps that blatant and excessive bias tends to make shit supremely unfunny. As it is, I even tried to salvage most of the whining myself with this time around (plus most previous reversions have subsequently tried to incorporate the legit criticisms into the article), but recent edits seem to indicate that's not in the cards.

So I'll just post an advance notice to spare us the usual bitching and projecting; I'm fully aware that I can't rightfully speak for anyone other than myself, but I'm pretty sure this is going to get on the wrong person's nerves before long. This is not a hill worth dying on, and as much as I've come to dislike dealing with this, I'd actually rather not see a ban occur as a potential result, because I have the feeling none of us will learn anything from it.

tl;dr you make an edit, you leave it open to revision, including ones you might not like. Not liking it is not ground to constantly revert and re-add shit, especially when previous removals have cited good reasons for doing so. Don't waste breath talking about accepting criticism if you're going to be sanctimonious about it.

Hopefully I've made myself clear.

--2604:2000:DE58:8C00:7D45:5B9F:302:F714 20:40, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Inb4[edit]

Don't bother adding in anything we don't like, or we will spam revise it to what we like. 1D4Chan: in the grim darkness of the future, their is only constant revisions. Sincerely,--Nicol bolas (talk) 10:21, 5 January 2018 (UTC) There's no point in even attempting to make a difference here.

"Waaahhh, people won't edit the wiki the way I like, im leaving dis site!!!1!" --72.89.211.145 20:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Oh what's that? Someone wrote a part of the article that I dont like! Yoink! Undone. Also have the decency to register an account as you just relinquished your IP for all to see. I'm definitely going to register an account so I can actually do some good around here.

Your ‘good’ will involve your obsession with this one line of thought, won’t it?—97.104.193.184 18:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

OH WAIT. He already has an account- that he just announced his abandonment of today. So long, Nico. You won't be missed. --Newerfag (talk) 18:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Imagine thinking anyone even cares about the IP of random wiki users. --72.89.211.145 06:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Expand the anime section?[edit]

The anime section is nice and all with cute little bullet points, but could we add more to it? Without adding huge page long summaries of each arc, maybe give each series it's own brief spotlight talking about relevant memes and particularly epic moments that most would agree are worth mentioning

I think I might do that.

Ojama quotes[edit]

Fell like Ojamas need a quote to truly sell what they are.

How is "Rejoice you may be suffering the worst the plague father can throw but at least your not an Ojama, Espelaly not Ojama Lime"

– Commissar giving a speech to dying conscripts.