• Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
  • If you're still waiting for the e-mail, be sure to check your junk/spam e-mail folders

Unpopular Pokemon opinions V2 (READ FIRST POST)

janejane6178

Kaleido Star FOREVER in my heart <3
Open world without gyms league with only the goal of catching Pokemon, sounds boring to me
 

Spider-Phoenix

#ChespinGang
I dont mind the art style of the DP remakes.
It doesn't bother me too. It reminds me of the Yokai Gakuen game, actually which I find kind of neat. Looking forward the crossover fanart. Don't fail me, internet!
 

Bus

Well-Known Member
Open world without gyms league with only the goal of catching Pokemon, sounds boring to me
It does, but it's literally the ONLY thing we know about the game so far. There's bound to be other things involved to give us reasons to purchase it.
 

Trillion

Well-Known Member
i couldn't care less about megas

the only one i actually really like is mega mawile

mega charizard x, mega gengar, and mega beedrill are alright too, but that's about it

i'd honestly prefer if megas didn't return but apparently they are with bdsp
 

janejane6178

Kaleido Star FOREVER in my heart <3
I love the old structure of Pokemon, and I dont get excited about an open world (Unless its still done in the old game way - gyms, league etc, only that the world is open... which will never happen sadly hehe).
That's why, I will only enjoy the older games, even SM.
 

MrJechgo

Well-Known Member
i couldn't care less about megas

the only one i actually really like is mega mawile

mega charizard x, mega gengar, and mega beedrill are alright too, but that's about it

i'd honestly prefer if megas didn't return but apparently they are with bdsp
Mega evolutions added much needed typings to some Pokémon, but if they remove them so are the typings. Charizard X (Fire/Dragon), Gyarados (Water/Dark), Ampharos (Electric/Dragon), Spectile (Grass/Dragon), Altaria (Dragon/Fairy), Lopunny (Normal/Fighting) and Audino (Normal/Fairy) should have become regular typings for them.
 

amoebo

amoeboVGC
I mentioned this in another thread but Pokemon is a franchise that has suffered from trying to continually appeal to a wider audience that it forgets what made the progression through the generations so good, causing a stagnation in the development in the games. It explains the constant poking at Kanto, the consistent drive to tie Pokemon GO to the main core franchises, the lack of difficulty in the main games, etc- these things exist because they're not meant to appeal to me or you, the hardcore, core, or even casual fan, they are designed to draw in people who chase the fad and sink minimal time into games.

Additionally, pointing to sales figures to exacerbate that one game is better than the others is a truly silly practice that fails to give proper way to factors behind those sales, e.g. Pokemon selling better on the switch, or older games selling less than their newer counterparts, or video games in general selling more since the beginning of the pandemic. Sales are an arbitrary way to gauge consumer satisfaction unless the driving forces behind those sales is understood.
 

Aryash Bajaj

You're such a kid
I never really get people when they say the graphics don't matter, it's all about gameplay when they talk about Pokemon games. Pokemon probably has the most outdated (and in some aspects downright broken gameplay) gameplay ever since the start of the franchise.

Pokemon never really changes it's skill perks, it's combat style, it's movements or anything that can actually be considered innovative. The turn based combat was never once improvised. It's always just restricted to clicking buttons. FF6 came in 1994 (the latest FF before Red/Blue) and managed to get a timer based combat right. Pokemon hasn't changed a single thing in 25 years. The movements are basic. The in-game campaign is so predictable and the worst offenders of level gating (increasing enemy level's in RPG's instead of making them genuinely difficult, Assassin's Creed has been doing it for a long time and hot criticised for it). Not to mention how repetitive it is. Ember -> Flame Burst -> Flamethrower can work in a game where the enemy itself provides variety. In Pokemon ? You used Ember on Bulbasaur, now use Flamethrower in Venusaur.

The only time Pokemon tried to make a fight difficult without aforementioned level gating is Cynthia and her team with EV's and IV's, but also introduced a weapon by the name of Weavile capable of 6 - 0'ing her. So I was actually happy that they were trying.

But NOOO, you have to have a broken AI that doesn't take note of the player. In gen 1, it is horrible (Ex :- Lance's Dragonite will continuously use agility against a Fighting or Poison type because it's psychic type). Some improvements till gen 3, but wait, enemy's use Earthquake on flying types. Why ?

Comes gen 4 with the super exploitable Roost spam because the AI won't even notice that your Skarmory is using roost for 5 times consecutively and still go for Rock Slide instead of Earthquake. Tried again in gen 5, same results. They aren't even trying to fix it. Games from many years ago have AI that tracks movements in a much more complex environment and control system. You would expect better from the world's most profitable company.

Then there's the disconnect between story and gameplay. Your gameplay (which is supposedly the most important part of this game since it is the most important activity involving Pokemon) doesn't matter to anyone in the game aside from you. It's an RPG for crying out loud and there is no acknowledgement of how you do things. Oh, you won with a team that has levels higher than your enemy say Cynthia, then we can get a "You came prepared. I'm impressed" cutscene. If your team is a few level lowers then we can get "You trusted your Pokemon overcame the challenges in front of you". But no, take this scripted cutscene of entering the hall of fame where I fully neglect how you did what you did.

Hoenn took a step in the right direction by more NPC's recognising you became the champion (more scripted event but it's an upgrade). Then in later games you will get one cutscene where the previous champion or your rival acknowledges you. You know, how Team Flare broadcasted the events on TV and the girl will still say "What a sunny day, do you have a Cinccino" or something along the lines. The most profitable organisation cannot be bothered to add acknowledgement in a RPG.

Then there's how little freedom you get in the story with the extremely on rails campaign. You get to choose your team, the thing that no one in the team cares about.

I think I was talking bout the disconnect, but yeah. The narrative isn't affected by how you proceed in the game. The gameplay is an entirely seperate thing with the cutscenes being their own thing. Giovanni doesn't feel humiliated if you beat him with a Rattata, neither does he gracefully accepts defeat against a well built team. The Pokemon games are a movie (with poor characters and mediocre story) where you get to interact with the movie in between. Only problem is that the movie doesn't care about the interactions and goes on with it anyway.

It's called Ludonarrative Dissonance. You get the gist by now. Gameplay and story never really connect.

Another unpopular opinion is that how much GameFreak gets a pass on things because the fanbase pretty much digests whatever they throw at us. Sword and Shield disappointed you ? Too bad, it sold 20 million copies and you paid 60 $ and later even more for an unfinished product.

Legends Arceus trailer is a joke that looks like alpha or pre alpha footage for a game set to release in one year. If a company like EA or Ubisoft published such a trailer, people would have been up in arms about how bad the game is and many of those claims would be true based on the recent track record. But we see the name "Pokemon" on it and forget every standard of gaming industry and let them sell us products that are worse than many indie games for 60 $. If EA made SwSh and released two DLC's that do not fix the overall game, we would have been having discussions about how lazy crash grabs the entire games are. But it's Pokemon so we can ignore it, get hyped for the next game that looks promising, get another unfinished game, rinse repeat.

Why do we get excuses like "There's one year left. It'll be good" for a game made by a company that has never once set foot in the open world field and released a trailer with extremely off putting aspects ? That is, of course, neglecting the fact that games don't get magically get fixed in one year. It takes a lot longer than that. Why is their overall mediocre track record never once brought up while companies other companies do not get such privileges even though they have released great game in the past ?
 

Spider-Phoenix

#ChespinGang
Comes gen 4 with the super exploitable Roost spam because the AI won't even notice that your Skarmory is using roost for 5 times consecutively and still go for Rock Slide instead of Earthquake. Tried again in gen 5, same results. They aren't even trying to fix it. Games from many years ago have AI that tracks movements in a much more complex environment and control system. You would expect better from the world's most profitable company.

To add to that point, I remember dataminers mentioning that GF still has the code for Underground stuff on post-gen 4 games. They don't even bother trying to fix the spaghetti code stuff.
 

Weavy

They call me the one who loves cats.
I hear quite a number of people say Pokemon has been going "downhill" since the 3DS games. I disagree with this statement. Yes, those games have flaws, but so does literally every other game in the series, so why constantly jab at the newer games when older games get a pass despite the flaws in them too?

And if you're one of those "old games good, new games bad" people, then why do you still play the games if you don't like them now? Just let people enjoy them without criticising their decision. Replay the old games if you're so adamant they're better than the new ones (note: I am not directing this at anyone in particular).
 

Rapiido

Well-Known Member
I've been seeing tons of posts online about how BDSP look awful and how they're going to be the worst remakes because they're just "faithful remakes" and not "everything I want and more". Because you know, the games are already out and we can fully judge them. On that note, I want to touch upon a pair of games lauded as the best in the series.

HGSS are the worst remakes.

Bring on the pitchforks.

The main problems with Gold and Silver were:

-the levelling was atrocious. You shouldn't be fighting level 25 Pokemon outside the gym that has a Pokemon with one almost nonexistent weakness in their 40s. Then in the postgame, the levels of gym leaders and wild encounters DROPS. Why?? If all gym leaders had raised levels, you maybe wouldn't have to grind to battle Red without getting one shot by his whole team.

-there are no Johto Pokemon in the Johto games. Seriously, the first few routes have Sentret, Hoothoot, Spinarak, Ledyba... and that's it until you beat the first gym where you get Mareep, Wooper, Hoppip..... and... uhhh.. yeah that's how the whole game goes. Those are the only Pokemon you can catch before beating the 3rd gym. Sorry I forgot the 1% Yanma and Dunsparce encounters because they are obviously too powerful to have regular spawn rates, and Sunkern. Not to mention, you can't even use a bunch in Johto because they aren't available until after you beat the league. And they aren't even good. Like why is Misdreavus only available after you get 16 badges??

-Gym leaders and Elite 4 don't even use Johto Pokemon. With all the gym leaders and elite 4 combined, you have: Miltank, Steelix, Piloswine, Kingdra, Xatu, Ariados, Crobat, Forretress, Hitmontop, Umbreon, Houndoom, Murkrow...... that's it. It'd be forgiving if there weren't Pokemon of their specialty type, but every gym leader and Elite 4 absolutely has options to fill out their teams with Johto-only Pokemon. Why doesn't Falkner have a Hoothoot and Noctowl? Why doesn't Bugsy have a Spinarak or Ledian? Why does Will have Slowbro and not Slowking?

-Barely a story, and the story events are just grinding Rocket Grunts... and not even a few at a time, you have to fight 20 Rocket Grunts that use the same Zubat, Rattata, Drowzee and Koffing and no Johto Pokemon, and fight the admins, who use Koffing and Weezing, and praise Helix they threw a Houndoom and Murkrow in there.


Now. What did HGSS fix? I'm talking specifically these remakes, not mechanics introduced in Diamond and Pearl (physical/special split for example). I do agree that area/location wise, they definitely improve upon what Gold and Silver lacked (mostly in Kanto), but this is stronger hardware and the games weren't being squished together last minute to fit in Kanto this time. This is purely from a gameplay experience perspective.

-well levels were raised by about 2 or 3 for some gym leaders, and the postgame gym leaders.... by like 5 or 6 levels, but some are still weaker than Lance, AND they raised Red's levels so what was even the point. You still HAVE to grind if you want to use a team of 6.

-you can get Mareep before the first gym now, so... there's that. Still can't use Houndour in the game though. Misdreavus is still apparently too broken to use before you've proven you're a god.

-there's actual story regarding the box legendaries this time, but it's really just forcing you to do something that was optional in the original games. Still a nice change. Team Rocket is still as snail-paced-boring as they were in the originals though (those Persian statues are the worst thing Pokemon has ever done), but at least they varied up the character designs.

And well... that's really it. I didn't add the Pokeathlon or the Battle Frontier as while they do add to the content, they don't help what the originals needed fixing. HGSS improved around the problems, but didn't actually solve any of them. Scale up the trainer and wild encounter levels, add some diversity to the Pokemon available and battled against, and either tone down or flesh out the Rocket fights more.. that's all they really needed.

I always see complaints about ORAS being awful for being too easy and... well that's subjective. "But the XP share and Megas!" Ok so.. turn the XP share off, and don't use the Megas.... tada. If anything, the addition of the Fairy type is the reason the games are so much easier (seriously, Fairy beats Brawly, Sidney and Drake, some of the original's harder Pokemon like Winona's Altaria and Phoebe's Sableye, as well as the Teams plethora of Mighteyna, Carvanha and Sharpedo. Basically if you used Gardevoir, you won). The games were deemed "bad" because the Battle Frontier wasn't in the game. But... ok? It wasn't in the original games, there was no basis for it to return. This was a remake of Ruby and Sapphire not Emerald. If anything the Battle Frontier would have been a nice extra, not an expected feature. Some people didn't like the artstyle and the fact that it was still grid based, but you can't have remakes of a grid-based game without scaling the entire games environment up and changing how it plays and being alienating to returning players. I just can't find any sound reasoning as to why ORAS is "bad".

All this can really be attributed to Generation 2 being the worst self-contained games and the remakes just had to work with what they had. FRLG and ORAS are just so much more replayable and entertaining, and so much easier to build a diverse team with. Not to mention both games add in extra story content and new characters postgame. HGSS just feels like nothing but grinding and padding. I'll ride a Rayquaza into space over being 20 levels below Red's Pikachu after beating every trainer in the game anyday.
 

Italianbaptist

Informed Casual
I never really get people when they say the graphics don't matter, it's all about gameplay when they talk about Pokemon games. Pokemon probably has the most outdated (and in some aspects downright broken gameplay) gameplay ever since the start of the franchise.

Pokemon never really changes it's skill perks, it's combat style, it's movements or anything that can actually be considered innovative. The turn based combat was never once improvised. It's always just restricted to clicking buttons. FF6 came in 1994 (the latest FF before Red/Blue) and managed to get a timer based combat right. Pokemon hasn't changed a single thing in 25 years. The movements are basic.
I'll counterpoint by throwing another unpopular opinion out there: the battle system doesn't need to change that much the way Final Fantasy's did. Don't get me wrong, there were plenty of smaller tweaks that needed to be made because as you said those older games were broken. Adding types for balance, abilities, and the Physical/Special split were just a few examples of net positives through the years. But the system itself doesn't need a complete overhaul because it's both simple to pick up and has a deeper level of strategy once you get into it. I compare this franchise to chess a lot, and that game's system has managed to captivate audiences for centuries even without the benefit of adding new "pieces" each generation.

I do think you're on to something though in regards to the Ludonarrative Dissonance argument you made. And maybe if they didn't try to add some new gimmick to the battle system every generation - Megas seem to be the only ones that worked - they could focus on telling some really good stories in this universe that is rife with creative possibilities. I don't think it's an accident that gens 5 and 7 were praised for (comparatively) better stories after a generation of learning the new hardware and getting things up to snuff. That doesn't necessarily mean we need a "training wheels" generation though; if Dynamaxing wasn't such a focus in Sword and Shield, could the team have perhaps taken that time to tighten up the Wild Area and story beats? Alas, we'll never know...but at least we got giant Fat Pikachu out of the deal ;)
 

Ignition

Funky Kong Propaganda
Something I don’t understand is when people act like Gen 1 is unplayable. Now I have a particular issue with Gen 1 with all the callbacks in recent years in addition to just not being a fan of how the game is designed so I’ll be the first to trash on them but unplayable is such an over exaggeration. Anyone can start a file of the games right now and not encounter a single glitch throughout their time. You have to deliberately look for a game breaking glitch. The oversights like the wonky type effectiveness (Fire isn’t resistant to Ice so Charizard and Moltres are weak to Ice) are still present and what people should criticize the game for but they don’t make the game unplayable.
 

Bus

Well-Known Member
I dislike Lucario due to the way its marketed, particularly in the anime. Cameron's and Korrina's Lucario ruined the species for me lol.
They definitely marketed the crap out of Lucario. I mean, design-wise he's ok and his typing was pretty cool, but he doesn't really stand out that much more than any of the others did. I wish they had given that attention to Garchomp instead. Something about a desert land shark just seems so much cooler to me.
 

Vini310

Well-Known Member
Graphically speaking, the main series is ALWAYS sub-par compared to spin-offs (Gen 4 and Gen 5 VS. Pokémon Ranger and Mystery Dungeon, anyone?)
 

Captain Jigglypuff

Leader of Jigglypuff Army
They definitely marketed the crap out of Lucario. I mean, design-wise he's ok and his typing was pretty cool, but he doesn't really stand out that much more than any of the others did. I wish they had given that attention to Garchomp instead. Something about a desert land shark just seems so much cooler to me.
And the fact that it can fly makes it even more interesting as a Pokémon. Lucario being able to see and read auras is interesting but when you compare it to a literal land shark that could easily ambush you from the sky at high speeds, Garchomp wins.
 
Top