Admiral Tim Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Do you like them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning Bagon Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Heck, yeah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♥ ЅϯᵲåώӀӞ℮ᴙʀɣ−ɴɨɨ−ƈħåɴ ♥ Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 Depends. Some are terrible, some are actually unique and interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milk-Chan Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 No. They can all be classified into an already existing type. For example...Human=Spellcaster/Warrior/PsychicVampire=ZombieNinja=WarriorAny animal=Beast, Winged-BeastMythical animal=Beast, Beast Warrior, Winged-Beast, DragonAquatic Life=Aqua, Sea Serpent, FishEtc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fenrir Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 No. They can all be classified into an already existing type. For example...Human=Spellcaster/Warrior/PsychicVampire=ZombieNinja=WarriorAny animal=Beast' date=' Winged-BeastMythical animal=Beast, Beast Warrior, Winged-Beast, DragonAquatic Life=Aqua, Sea Serpent, FishEtc.[/quote'] This. Fake Types are stupid. =/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted October 10, 2009 Report Share Posted October 10, 2009 There is no point in Fake Type, the real ones easily classify anything. Some people get cofused between a type, an archetype and a subtype. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunter. Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 absolutely not. i hate fake types. why can't people just use archtypes and subtypes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JG. Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Personally I don't care, but most of teh time I liek to see them, unless they're noobish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kotaro Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I hate fake types, so my answer is no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shrekstasy Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Only sub-types, are they? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hell-Razor Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Sometimes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ihop Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I hate fake types.Why have them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caine Ghest Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The limiting of Fake types limits imagination. Some of us do not want to be tied down to the official types and would rather expand into something unique and new. Fake type hatred is childish. I understand the distaste for noobish fake types, but those with more detail and complexity do not deserve the hate. Some cards just can't fit into the established types. Myself in particular feel that luck based cards should have their own type, instead of being Warriors/Spellcasters/Fairies/Etc. My Gambler type fits perfectly for cards back on luck, because using them is typically a gamble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 The limiting of Fake types limits imagination. Some of us do not want to be tied down to the official types and would rather expand into something unique and new. Fake type hatred is childish. I understand the distaste for noobish fake types' date=' but those with more detail and complexity do not deserve the hate. Some cards just can't fit into the established types. Myself in particular feel that luck based cards should have their own type, instead of being Warriors/Spellcasters/Fairies/Etc. My Gambler type fits perfectly for cards back on luck, because using them is typically a gamble.[/quote'] You sir, are a n00b. Just make them "Luck Lord" Archetype instead of coming up with some lame Fake Type. There are already multiple luck based cards, none of which have had the need for a new Type. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Milk-Chan Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Exactly. You can give me any type in the world, and I could classify it into an actual type.I understand the imagination thing, but that's when you make an Archtype. I would say duh, but that's not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Jevans Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 I don't like fake types and I would have to agree with Milk-Chan. They can easily be put into the already existing types.If people must make them, use sub-types. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 No. They can all be classified into an already existing type. For example...Human=Spellcaster/Warrior/PsychicVampire=ZombieNinja=WarriorAny animal=Beast' date=' Winged-BeastMythical animal=Beast, Beast Warrior, Winged-Beast, DragonAquatic Life=Aqua, Sea Serpent, FishEtc.[/quote'] Far too generic. A random person should be a warrior? Lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felix Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 No. They can all be classified into an already existing type. For example...Human=Spellcaster/Warrior/PsychicVampire=ZombieNinja=WarriorAny animal=Beast' date=' Winged-BeastMythical animal=Beast, Beast Warrior, Winged-Beast, DragonAquatic Life=Aqua, Sea Serpent, FishEtc.[/quote'] Far too generic. A random person should be a warrior? Lol. Why would anybody make a random person into a card? I don't recall ever seeing "Glenn the Postman" as a card. "Human" is one of the more retarded fake types commonly seen on YCM. Give me a decent Fake Type that I can't fit into another already existing bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAEGING D0GKING Posted October 11, 2009 Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 Hate them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admiral Tim Posted October 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2009 yes and everyone who hates em join my rebellion, link in sig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sploda Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 The limiting of Fake types limits imagination. Some of us do not want to be tied down to the official types and would rather expand into something unique and new. Fake type hatred is childish. I understand the distaste for noobish fake types' date=' but those with more detail and complexity do not deserve the hate. Some cards just can't fit into the established types. Myself in particular feel that luck based cards should have their own type, instead of being Warriors/Spellcasters/Fairies/Etc. My Gambler type fits perfectly for cards back on luck, because using them is typically a gamble.[/quote']I'm with Caine on this one. Why limit yourself when you could create the next big thing. One day one of us might work for Konami and be allowed to create a new type. If we limit ourselves now then we limit the future of this site and possible the future of the Yugioh world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caine Ghest Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 The limiting of Fake types limits imagination. Some of us do not want to be tied down to the official types and would rather expand into something unique and new. Fake type hatred is childish. I understand the distaste for noobish fake types' date=' but those with more detail and complexity do not deserve the hate. Some cards just can't fit into the established types. Myself in particular feel that luck based cards should have their own type, instead of being Warriors/Spellcasters/Fairies/Etc. My Gambler type fits perfectly for cards back on luck, because using them is typically a gamble.[/quote'] You sir, are a n00b. Just make them "Luck Lord" Archetype instead of coming up with some lame Fake Type. There are already multiple luck based cards, none of which have had the need for a new Type. I present a valid argument and you write me off as a n00b, really where is the validity in your argument? Why make an Archetype when several of the cards you would like to include in the group wouldn't fit with the Archetype name. Say I use your "Luck Lord" name for the basis of an Archetype, there are only so many things you can do with that. With Fake types you are allowed more creative freedom to work with, Say I want to name one card "Tuning Ace" and another "Luck Reaper" there isn't really a good way to tie those two cards together with an Archetype. I am not saying we should change all the old cards to match certain Fake types. I would like to see a type expansion, allowing for more depth and strategy to the game. There is so much meta game bullshit that it is killing the fun of playing the game. Creativity is what this site is about and all of your hatred of Fake types is killing that Creativity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flash Flyer - Sakura Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I'm okay with them, unless they are just pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jolta Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 I know why people hate them. They don't have REAL cards to support them. I think Fake Types are OK as long as we have proper support cards, sometimes, if there is a real type close enough, make it that real type... I'm Neutral and on both sides, so NOTHING TO SAY. I can't wait for a war about MULTIPLE types... boy, that is gonna be sooo fun. A war about those, and me, standin' by the side, not doing anything, cos' Fake or Real... I don't give a f*** about fake stuff or real stuff! It's just like Pirated goods, as long as you can use them... there. Simple. Remember YCMers - Pirated stuff are awesome cos' we can use them! Fake subtypes, fake ATTRIBUTES... Those are way awesomer... Fake Types aren't OK, Unless you create like... Hundreds of them... HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS AND EVERLASTING POWER! Indeed. Then, support cards for fake types? I think I'm repeating the same thing. Hope someone quotes this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~/Coolio Prime\~ Posted October 12, 2009 Report Share Posted October 12, 2009 No. They can all be classified into an already existing type. For example...Human=Spellcaster/Warrior/PsychicVampire=ZombieNinja=WarriorAny animal=Beast' date=' Winged-BeastMythical animal=Beast, Beast Warrior, Winged-Beast, DragonAquatic Life=Aqua, Sea Serpent, FishEtc.[/quote'] Far too generic. A random person should be a warrior? Lol. Why would anybody make a random person into a card? I don't recall ever seeing "Glenn the Postman" as a card. "Human" is one of the more retarded fake types commonly seen on YCM. Give me a decent Fake Type that I can't fit into another already existing bracket.If can't think of a reason to create rather lackluster people you suffer from extreme creativity problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.