Thoughts on RNG, "cheating"
I think this is one of the most interesting discussions on Pokemon I've ever read...and I think I agree largely with Ascalon and perhaps Honch King.
DrLunatic's "Casual" and "Competitive": this is largely a difference between people who say "Anything that can be done, should be done" and those who think differently (for whatever reason).
While the aforementioned interview snippet (thanks for posting the original review, Naxte) clearly indicates that competitive play is intended by GameFreak, I don't think this was always the case. Back in the RBY days, I don't think they were putting that much thought into species and type balance as they do now - e.g., Venusaur's uselessness vs. other starters, the absence of the Dark and Steel types, and so forth. They clearly do now - the intricate balance between the Sinnoh starters (their vulnerability trifecta almost evens out / reverses once the three hit their third evolutions!) is a testament to this.
There is an interesting book called "The Art of Intrusion: The Real Stories Behind the Exploits of Hackers, Intruders and Deceivers" by Kevin Mitnick. Kevin Mitnick went to jail for "hacking" in to computer systems.
http://www.amazon.com/Art-Intrusion...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251480390&sr=8-3
I've read it, and it is a great read - VERY enjoyable. Most of the stories behind the people in this book are about people who take the former view of "cheating" - that is, if it's possible, it should be allowed.
The first story regards a couple of programmers hacking a casino. They found a computerized blackjack game. They bought a copy of the game for themselves. They tore it apart and analyzed the EEPROMs. Then, they decoded the random number generator (which had a flaw that kept it from being completely random) and designed a pocket-sized device that would allow them to predict which cards were coming up. They took this device into the casinos and won thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands, of dollars. Of course, when one of them gets caught with the device (by being somewhat foolish about how / when / how often he uses it), they stop using it altogether.
Clearly, this COULD happen, but it was never intended to be allowed, and any casino would throw you out for it. The fact that Nintendo doesn't do this for competitive play in its tournaments is probably because there's relatively little money involved. Is this sort of thing "cheating?" Is it "wrong" because they are "stealing" money from a casino? Surely, if the casinos wanted you not to do this, they would be more diligent and fix the RNGs on their electronic machines, wouldn't they - if that's what they really intended? Weren't these guys just "powergaming?"
It's interesting to note (at least, from that story) that it IS possible to create a truly random number with a computer, but that hardware / software specifically designed for the process seems to be required. The Nintendo DS is a pretty simple machine, and might simply not be capable of producing a "truly" random number each time one is required in the Pokemon games. So it may be completely possible that GameFreak wants the number to be random and just can't make it so. Of course, on the flip side (pun intended), why do they have the coin flip Poketch game that affects the RNG?
Really, I do think that it's somewhat silly to, on one hand, allow manipulation of the RNG as "legal" and then to disallow something like Double Team or freezing an entire team in competitive play. GameFreak certainly allows those things to happen - and even provides counters to evasiveness in terms of abilities / moves / items. So why make them "illegal" but allow RNG manipulation? Some might argue that those rules make competitive play more fun, but who's to say that others find competitive play more fun without RNG manipulation?
I also see very little difference between AR/Gamesharking and RNG manipulation. It's coming down to splitting hairs at that point, because it's true - RNG manipulation requires outside devices just as much as AR/Gamesharking. The fact that it's not actually connected to the Nintendo DS itself and changing bytes in the game is immaterial - it's still allowing you to change bytes in the game. It's the difference between using a manual lock-pick to pick a lock and using a drill bit to just force it open...either way, you're not using the key that was made for it, regardless of whether manually moving tumblers with a pick requires more "skill" to figure out. The fact is that the door is locked - if GameFreak REALLY wanted to make RNG manipulation an integral part of competitive play, they'd just give you the key, and provide a method for specifying particular species / EVs / IVs / moves a la Shoddy.
It's a completely arbitrary standard, really, which is fine - as long as it's acknowledged as such. "Cheating," therefore, is also arbitrary, and is based on whatever rules-assumption one operates with. If anything, it would be interesting to make a few sets of meta-rules - an "authorial intent" ruleset, and the "designed for competitive fun" ruleset, as two different approaches to the game, and let people play as they would.
There are loads of other ways to look at Pokemon apart from min/maxing stats...exploration, collection, or the battle-tower-competition that puts a whole new twist on movesets and whatnot. People should be allowed to play and compete with the rules that are fun for them. If some people don't find RNG manipulation fun, it seems rather callous to simply say: "Then you should never battle competitively, or just use Shoddy." Maybe they should just have their own set of tournament rules...although how one would enforce it would be tough; would need to operate on the honor system in some regard. But that's a whole different discussion.