-
Hi all. We have had reports of member's signatures being edited to include malicious content. You can rest assured this wasn't done by staff and we can find no indication that the forums themselves have been compromised.
However, remember to keep your passwords secure. If you use similar logins on multiple sites, people and even bots may be able to access your account.
We always recommend using unique passwords and enable two-factor authentication if possible. Make sure you are secure. -
Be sure to join the discussion on our discord at: Discord.gg/serebii
Why do you think there are terrible Pokemon?
- Thread starter sutasafaia
- Start date
It's just like if you think something is good and terrible and then this other person thinks the stuff you call good to be terrible and the stuff they find terrible you think is good, I think hoenn is a mess of terrible looking pokemon, but there is large groups of people who like them, but I still respect them for whatever they like regardless of how they think.
CharlieDoryRose
Dragon Freak
Because that's what you find in nature. In the wild world you don't find all animals are useful for kicking the Magikarp out of each other. These "bad" pokemon tend to have a use outside of battle, something that helps the world they're in. It balances out the ecosystem in the pokemon universe.
Pookey-man
The Man of Many...
There can be no balance in the world if everything is equal. No pokemon is completely useless. The worst pokemon such as magikarp are either there for laughs or because they evolve into something better.
meismadatyou
Johto League Master
I agree with this 100% I'm sure they wouldn't release a Pokemon that is absolutely useless or unattractive.
Stunfisk, card makes me laugh every single time, deep down inside.
To be honest I guess it would be a culmination of opinions on what people think about the diversity of pokemon in the pokemon world versus which one you like and another person likes but at the same time I look at it like kanto, It's my favorite gen, not because it's first, or it has pikachu, I like all of the pokemon equally it doesn't matter if it's grimer or machop, a new installment like slyveon, etc, and even if it's as weak as farfetched it's still a cool pokemon to me. So regardless of diversity, opinion, whatever (even if I think it's terrible) aren't they all cool as is?
*~Silver*~
Well-Known Member
I find myself agreeing with this.
Even Magikarp has a use. I've raised a Magikarp [named Mewtwo] to evolve into Gyarados. All the time it was a Magikarp it was pretty pathetic, but once it evolves it suddenly comes to be one of the best Pokemon.
I've only ever actually raised on Magikarp. Most of the time I wait until later in the game when you can just catch a wild Gyarados.
Lost Lore
Diving Deep
Well, for starters, "terrible" is entirely a matter of opinion.
Yes, there are Pokemon with abysmal stats and poor movepools. Yes, there are some with less-than-pleasing designs, aesthetically.
However, on the first point, it's just a matter of finding a certain Pokemon's niche. Find how you're most comfortable using it and work with it from there. Compensate for that poor movepool by building the rest of your team to help it out, if you need to. If you want to use it, figure out a way to use it.
And different people have different tastes. Someone may not like- for example, since it's picked on a crapton- Vanillite's line for being based on ice cream. In my own personal opinion, battling with your food is one of the most brilliant things I've ever heard.
My point is, all Pokemon are different. They can all be used in different ways, they all have different stats, different types, etc etc. Basically what is deemed "terrible" and what is not is entirely up to the person using them.
*cough* ...To actually properly answer the topic however, there are "terrible" Pokemon to maintain that variety, I'd say.
Yes, there are Pokemon with abysmal stats and poor movepools. Yes, there are some with less-than-pleasing designs, aesthetically.
However, on the first point, it's just a matter of finding a certain Pokemon's niche. Find how you're most comfortable using it and work with it from there. Compensate for that poor movepool by building the rest of your team to help it out, if you need to. If you want to use it, figure out a way to use it.
And different people have different tastes. Someone may not like- for example, since it's picked on a crapton- Vanillite's line for being based on ice cream. In my own personal opinion, battling with your food is one of the most brilliant things I've ever heard.
My point is, all Pokemon are different. They can all be used in different ways, they all have different stats, different types, etc etc. Basically what is deemed "terrible" and what is not is entirely up to the person using them.
*cough* ...To actually properly answer the topic however, there are "terrible" Pokemon to maintain that variety, I'd say.
Even if every pokemon was "Amazing", most people would still only use the ones with advantages over others. Still creating a meta-game... still making some pokemon terrible. I really think some pokemon are just for fun though, like farfetch'd. I love that pokemon but I would never try to use it competitively but in-game is a different story.
Also It could be that some people actually like using weaker pokemon. It makes the game a bit more of a challenge and adds to the diversity of pokemon. A little something for everyone.
Also It could be that some people actually like using weaker pokemon. It makes the game a bit more of a challenge and adds to the diversity of pokemon. A little something for everyone.
Hidden Power
Well-Known Member
Magikarp being useless and evolving into a formidable Pokemon is all part of its evolutionary theme. Its usefulness can be seen just after 15 levels of grinding back in Gen I. But some Pokemon just lack any serious use either in-game, competitively, or both. Unless you wish to believe that being really, really weak is in itself a 'use' for players who wants a more challenging in-game experience, which pretty much boils down to grinding for a longer period of time to overcome the inherent lack of stats. And I'm sure we have no lack of such Pokemon choices.
The DragonKnight
*-*
there are terrible Pokemon for the same reason there are good Pokemon.
If all Pokemon were good, then all would be equivalent, making the game a pushover and not making the game as good as it is.
There wouldn't be good Pokemon if there wasn't bad Pokemon, and vice versa.
If all Pokemon were good, then all would be equivalent, making the game a pushover and not making the game as good as it is.
There wouldn't be good Pokemon if there wasn't bad Pokemon, and vice versa.
remybutton
Active Member
So that some extremely hardcore players could feel proud after defeating a team of ubers with a team build around a useless Pokemon.
Rayze Darr
Snubbull Supporter
Even the most terrible Pokemon get love in some way, shape, or form. There exist people who will love a Pokemon BECAUSE it's terrible. Maybe its design is terrible and they love how derpy it is. Maybe its stats are terrible and they love the challenge of making one of them into a killing machine. I can guarantee that there exists no Pokemon that isn't someone's favorite.
;399;
;399;
Master Ask
I am your Greninja
I guess survival of the fittest doesn't fit into Pokémon 
I guess it is to balance things out with strong and weak Pokémon
I guess it is to balance things out with strong and weak Pokémon
Inferno Vulpix
Despicably Average
The simple solution: Game Freak doesn't care in the slightest. Sure, they care that the majority of Pokemon should have decent enough stats when they reach their final evolved form, and that Legendaries should be more powerful than Bidoof, but in the end, if Game Freak doesn't think this specific Pokemon should get a good speed stat, it's not going to get one.
A perfect example of this is Flareon: People still cry out that it, with a 130 base Attack, should have access to Flare Blitz, but it doesn't. The reason why Game Freak never gave Flareon Flare Blitz: They just didn't think it should get it. Not cruel malice towards the poor Eeveelution, not absurd levels of laziness, it's just that they don't really think Flare Blitz belongs on Flareon as a Pokemon species, instead of looking at Flareon as a competitive weapon and giving it Flare Blitz to make it better.
Game Freak doesn't think competitively. They didn't realize the clever ways Wobbuffet, a Pokemon that wasn't really supposed to stand out all that much, could be used, and as such we get a lethal joke character that got kicked up to Ubers. Similarly, they made Black and White Kyurem without making them stupidly competitively viable, and because of this it's only in OU instead of Ubers due to its typing, despite it's BST.
In short, Game Freak makes terrible Pokemon because they don't really care how good it is in the first place.
A perfect example of this is Flareon: People still cry out that it, with a 130 base Attack, should have access to Flare Blitz, but it doesn't. The reason why Game Freak never gave Flareon Flare Blitz: They just didn't think it should get it. Not cruel malice towards the poor Eeveelution, not absurd levels of laziness, it's just that they don't really think Flare Blitz belongs on Flareon as a Pokemon species, instead of looking at Flareon as a competitive weapon and giving it Flare Blitz to make it better.
Game Freak doesn't think competitively. They didn't realize the clever ways Wobbuffet, a Pokemon that wasn't really supposed to stand out all that much, could be used, and as such we get a lethal joke character that got kicked up to Ubers. Similarly, they made Black and White Kyurem without making them stupidly competitively viable, and because of this it's only in OU instead of Ubers due to its typing, despite it's BST.
In short, Game Freak makes terrible Pokemon because they don't really care how good it is in the first place.