Trainers Not Interesting Enough?

[W.T.]

One of the main reasons for my addiction to Colo, XD, PBR, etc., is the fact that (almost) all of the trainers have pretty legit teams that I can sort of relate to. Take, for instance, one of the Team Snagem guys, who has Sceptile, Medicham, Vigoroth and Zangoose. He's not major to the plot or anything, but his team actually packs a real punch. (His Pokémon have the potential for quite a balanced overall moveset, and his stats, especially Attack, are also through the roof.)

But in the handheld games... not a chance. Other than bosses, gym leaders, the Frontier and a select few Ace Trainers, almost everyone's team consists of:
• 3-6 copies of the exact same species at different levels.
• 3-6 Pokémon of different species, but the same type and the same level.

Any thoughts? Has anyone else noticed this before? And please don't say "That would make it too hard!", Colo and XD were challenging but I still owned the house.

 

[Tof]

I agree completly, most trainers in the handheld games are a breeze to beat. I was there was some sort of difficulty setting. I would crank it up to hard.

 

[BlitzBlast]

Well duh. They're supposed to, for one, match up to themes (Swimmers get water pokemon, for example, but what about Hunters in the GCN games? What would a Hunter have?) and they're supposed to give you team ideas, as well as to fill out your dex.

 

[Yonowaru in Chaos]

Being such a big game on so many levels, I doubt that the teams of individual trainers would deserve to have Game Freak spend so much time on them, especially when they could address other, more important issues.

Even so, I think there should be AI-equivalents of the main player, to flesh out the region out a bit. What we have now is fine though, and there are other things that define the AI trainers' individuality, such as their usually juicy quotes.

 

[squlicky4]

well firstly look at all the time they would use up setting difficulty levels i mean the primary goal for your trainer is to become the pokemon master so if you battle then defeat do you not consider that as a good thing

 

[Aviano]

Being such a big game on so many levels, I doubt that the teams of individual trainers would deserve to have Game Freak spend so much time on them, especially when they could address other, more important issues.

I don't know, with Pokemon battles being like, the main activity in Pokemon games, you'd think they'd be able to afford spending alot of time on them. That includes increasing the AI but also the Pokemon.

 

[Will-powered Spriter]

They certainly ought to make teams more interesting in the later games.
Collectors on DP were the worst. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them had three pokemon of equal species and level.

 

[Tof]

It seems to me that in each new gen/game, the trainers get considerably weaker. The trainers were WAY too easy on d/p/pt.

 

[BCVM22]

It seems to me that in each new gen/game, the trainers get considerably weaker. The trainers were WAY too easy on d/p/pt.

And there is, of course, no chance that might be because you get progressively older and [in theory] smarter and more capable of implementing and executing strategies with each generation, right?

 

[Tof]

And there is, of course, no chance that might be because you get progressively older and [in theory] smarter and more capable of implementing and executing strategies with each generation, right?

That may be the case. But I still think they should include a difficulty setting for the more experienced/older people, I would like a challenge from time to time.

 

[suicune lover]

Well, the trainers do have themes as stated, swimmers spen most of their time in water and therefore have water pokemon, but I do agree, they should make trainers have a bit of variation.

 

[Tof]

Stupid website lag caused me to post the same message 3 times. Sorry about that. Mod's feel free to delete.

 

[Birds of Paradise]

I can understand the same level part, that is so we can level up accordingly. But I agree, it does get tiresome battling trainers who have 3 ratatta, 2 pidgey, ect. I wouldn't mind if they mixed it up a little bit, and the only reason I can think of that they don't is because all of the doubles of pokemon are a way of controling when and how fast our pokedex fills up (for the "seen but not caught") because this affects what pokemon we will be able to search for on gts and such.

 

[Skaisdead]

It's not hard to beat someone who uses four Pokemon of the same type. Just use your Electivire on the Swimmer, your Gyarados on the Hikers, and your Gardevoir on the Blackbelts. Due to the fact that trainers typically specialize in one type, it just makes them that much easier to take down. Except for the Pokemon Breeders. I wish there were more of them. They always use six Pokemon of different types.

 

[BCVM22]

But I still think they should include a difficulty setting for the more experienced/older people

If they were at all worried about "more experienced/older people" beyond hidden game mechanics, I'm sure they would. They aren't.

The choice of starters provide as much of a "difficulty setting" as you're going to find. For example, if you select Bulbasaur as your Kanto starter, you'll have a type advantage through the first three gyms. Squirtle gives you an advantage in the first gym and Charmander puts you at a distinct disadvantage through the first two gyms.

 

[Tof]

If they were at all worried about "more experienced/older people" beyond hidden game mechanics, I'm sure they would. They aren't.

The choice of starters provide as much of a "difficulty setting" as you're going to find. For example, if you select Bulbasaur as your Kanto starter, you'll have a type advantage through the first three gyms. Squirtle gives you an advantage in the first gym and Charmander puts you at a distinct disadvantage through the first two gyms.

I was talking about the trainers'... not the gym's.

 

[BCVM22]

The point remains, however. If you want a difficulty challenge, you could try playing through the game with only one Pokémon or only Pokémon of a certain type or anything like that. There are ways of changing the difficulty that don't depend on flipping a switch from "Easy" to "Hard".

 

[Tof]

The point remains, however. If you want a difficulty challenge, you could try playing through the game with only one Pokémon or only Pokémon of a certain type or anything like that. There are ways of changing the difficulty that don't depend on flipping a switch from "Easy" to "Hard".

When I meant increasing the difficulty of the game I meant the A.I as well. At times the A.I can be incredibly stupid. Playing the game with a different Pokemon won't change that.

 

[BCVM22]

Playing the game with a different Pokemon won't change that.

No, but it will change the difficulty level as you suggested.

 

[Tof]

No, but it will change the difficulty level as you suggested.

A difficulty level has a couple of main factors in Pokemon, specifically the Level of the Pokemon and the A.I controlling it. It's true that playing the game with different Pokemon each time will have different results. But the A.I is so mediocre that it will hardly have any effect. For example in D/P/PT when I was battling the Champion I was close to losing. Had one Pokemon left with low HP. One hit could have knocked me out, instead the A.I decides to use a Stat Boosting move which cost her the match.