Would you prefer if the campaign was mostly double battles?

[Aduro]

Aside from Colosseum and XD, almost every major battle in every pokemon game is a single battle. But most official competition involves double battles.
Do you think that there should be more double battles during the actual campaign?

I think it would be a lot more exciting. Firstly, pokemon get a lot of moves and abilities that are mostly, or even only good for doubles. The games would work better as an introduction to VGC if they could be doubles.

It would also introduce a lot more of a challenge to the game. Instead of being able to just safely switch into whatever resists your opponent. You have to take into account two threats at once. Doubles is a faster and more exciting format.
That's why doing a nuzlocke of Colosseum and XD feels completely different and more exciting compared to any other official pokemon game. Because your team is in real danger much more of the time.

 

[Rapti]

Yes definitely however that's just personal preference
the real question is how well received such a game would be

now historically Pokemon spin offs tend to not sell particularly well (with a few exceptions) so we should ignore the sell figures of the coliseum games and focus instead on how other monster collecting games with a focus on 2 on 2 battles have sold

which pretty much just leaves us with Temtem which sold very well in its first month before falling off a cliff and while it eventually stabilized its numbers are nowhere near as big as S&S in spite of the initial praise
now of course part of that is just how grindy Temtem can be, and just how well known Pokemon is but nonetheless is indicative of how double battles might be a bit too complicated for many people

that said the main games would definitely improve if at least a third of the game were double battles

at the very least it would introduce more people to the format and maybe even increase the popularity of the VGCs

 

[mertyville]

I wouldn't mind either way.
Colosseum and XD are fun.

 

[spookysocialist]

I don't see why it can't simply be an option at the start of the game. Just ask the player if they want to play in single or double mode, and just have slight team edits for major fights in double mode.

 

[The Mind Electric]

Could be interesting. Double battles have different strategies and such. I'm not sure if I prefer double battles or single battles, though.

 

[Hugin]

I'll argue from a story standpoint that it should not be an optional thing. If the game is all* double battles, then you can work that into the rivals, the leaders, etc. Picture the current "One jerk, one friendly" rival setup where one of them is heavily offensive and the other one runs mostly support moves like Helping Hand and Wide Guard. And they team up with you for various dungeons, forcing your team to be flexible enough to handle being on your own or with either ally**. Gym leaders can have the dual mon strats built in from the ground up. Rooms with 3-4 type specialist trainers, so you can pick which 2 to face at once and which ones to face by themselves. Mons can have double battle learnsets and abilities from the start, rather than being tacked on.

If you make the games go either way, a lot of that goes away. The double battles will be a lot more "two mons with no spread moves and the same typing die to Discharge" or whatever, and people will hate it. There's a LOT of random NPC and wild battles in the game, and GF has to choose what to focus on. Making them do two versions of every battle seems like a bad plan.

As to whether I'd like it, I don't know. I never played the existing double battle tie-ins, but that was a hardware decision. What double battles there are in the games are annoying, but that's usually because my team isn't set up for them. I'd at least give it a chance.

*or mostly. I could see some real fun in a game where it's double battles for the gyms/E4 but the evil team is exclusively single battles because they hate teamwork or whatever. It would force you to adapt your strategy quite a bit doing things that way.
**the final rival battle, of course, is the two of them vs you solo.

 

[Pikachu315111]

If we don't have a choice, I'm more in the "equal" balance camp. Single, Doubles, and whatever other battling style they have each have their own merits and strategies. Focusing just on Singles & Doubles, they're probably the "easiest" two to switch between so, while I see the game still mostly being Singles, there should be plenty more Doubles than there are. An easy way to explain away why there would be sudden switching it just saying that on this Route/in this Town or City that either Singles or Doubles is the main way of battling, of course then also having one or two trainers who decides to go against the norm and doing another kind of style (which doesn't need to be Single or Double). That way it keeps the player on their toes, not to get used to one battling style as the next location may switch it up, as well as providing that experience. Singles is the traditional battle method obviously, BUT competitive has mostly focus on Doubles and for the game not to enforce a Doubles mindset is creating a big cap between casual/main story play and competitive/post game.

As for how this would work for important battles like with Rivals, Gym Leaders, Villain Team, and the League, well it would all vary. For Rivals its probably the easiest, if not in a context where there's an official league battling happening than the Rivals can easily go "hey, let's make this a Double Battle". Now, if they're kind, they can give you a yes-no option, but honestly that wouldn't really be in the nature of wanting to keep the player ready for anything; a jerk/quicky rival would most certainly not give the choice. Gym Leaders are tricky as it has to be one or the other, to the point maybe splitting the Gym Leaders between all available style wouldn't be a bad idea (I remember there being one BW or B2W2 rom hack where they have 2 Gym Leaders for each of the main styles in those games: Singles, Doubles, Triples, & Rotation; singe Sword & Shield only has Singles & Doubles that makes it easier with 4 each (heck, Raihan is already a Double Battle so just need 3 more)). Villain Team, I'd imagine the grunts being Single as they normally don't have that many Pokemon to begin with while the Admins being Doubles (or Tag Team, the few times they could have those with the player also having a partner); meanwhile the Boss they could have switch between styles if you fight them multiple times, though I feel for the final battle it would be Single for dramatic effect. League is the big question mark here as, unlike the Gym Leaders, they really can't split them without feeling off (the Gym Leaders you have time between to adjust, but the Elite Four who you battle back-to-back might be a bit much at least on a normal difficulty); much like with the villain Admins & Boss, I'd say the Elite Four are Doubles while the Champion in Single (for those who like to have the last major story battle be them & their Starter against the Champion & their ace).

Obviously the more battle styles there are the more complicated this gets. Doubles is rarely seen but do happen, but any third and beyond is usually relegated as a gimmick in some location. Triple/Rotation happened in very specific spots, Sky Battles you had to seek out the trainer who was hiding someplace (and only battles once thus when all done no more Sky Battles not even in Battle Facility or multi-player), and Inverse Battles was just one trainer randomly placed somewhere like any other NPC (at least in XY, in ORAS they gave Inver a "facility" in Mauville City which was nice though also meant he was away from the post game's main location: the Battle Resort). Surely if they expand upon the presence of Double then it would mean these additional battle styles also deserve additional locations, no (going with my suggestion, wouldn't it mean there should be at least one route where they battle with this rare style)? As you see, it can quickly become a slippery slope.

I don't see why it can't simply be an option at the start of the game. Just ask the player if they want to play in single or double mode, and just have slight team edits for major fights in double mode.

I too have thought of that idea (though I personally prefer the ability to be able to switch back to an easier setting if one setting makes a battle too hard; the battle already exists in the game so why lock it off & GF usually let's the player decide their own difficulty and the option to back off of it (though one could argue that's more out of laziness than intended QoL design)).

Though, as Hugin pointed out, while maybe you can get away with the NPC and villain grunts not being so tactical with their Pokemon made for Single Battle having no synergy is suddenly placed in a Double Battle setting, you can't get away with it for Rivals, Gym Leaders, villain Admins & Bosses, and the League. Either GF would have to design their teams so that they could operate efficiently enough in both Singles & Doubles OR would have to design a different team if Singles or Doubles. Once again, maybe they could make it so the early Rival battles, early Gym Leaders, and villain admins use the same "efficient enough" team while later Rival battles, later Gym Leaders, villain boss, and League all have two teams.

And even still, I would argue a Double Battles mode shouldn't be a standard mode, you would have to go into the options, pick it, and confirm it lest a kid may accidentally activate it and now suddenly a boss is walling them with their two Pokemon.

 

[Ironmage]

If the idea is to make the ingame match the multiplayer more, I would look towards normalizing the "set" style over the "switch" style first. In addition to being used in both mutliplayer and postgame facilities, it also happens to be used for all the ingame double battles as well, so it would be removing one inconsistency between the styles early.

As for my personal preference, I run into the other side of the argument: I've got a fondness for a specific kind of move that doesn't see much use ingame, but moving to doubles would probably make it even worse. I want the AI to switch more so I can actually get away with running hazards against them.

 

[Mango Smoothie]

The increased prevalence of doubles battles (especially in major battles) opens up room to have more themed/strategy-based gym leaders (as a way to spice up the type-based gyms). Certain strategies work well in singles that don't go as well in doubles (and vice versa), so like a "pivoting-move" based gym would want to be singles whereas one that emphasizes speed control (tailwind, trick room, etc) would want to be doubles. Heck you could even have the water-type gym be weather-based and that works either way (with Swift Swim Poliwhirl). The "choose singles/doubles" would be interesting for the league at the very least, like these are meant to be the top 5 trainers in the region so they should be well-versed in both singles/doubles battles (assuming they're more prevalent in the game).

One drawback could be that some doubles moves are either tutor/breeding based (Helping Hand, Icy Wind/Electroweb, etc), or have limited distribution (Fake Out, Follow Me/Rage Powder) so those might have to be more accessible during the main campaign. But I would very much welcome more doubles battles in pokemon games.

 

[ScraftyIsTheBest]

I think it would be really cool to have a game that has a campaign that focuses largely on double battles. Doubles invite new levels of strategy that you can't really do in Singles and I think it would be a nice and interesting spin for a main story campaign.

Not only that, but especially in recent generations there are a lot of Pokémon whose in-battle capabilities and design are explicitly designed around Doubles and are intended to have battle gimmicks specifically catered to that environment. Klinklang, Whimsicott, Oranguru, Comfey, Florges, and the like are all Pokémon who are designed with a Doubles environment in mind and don't get to shine as much in many in-game playthroughs because of a lack of availability of Double battles. If we had a game that was primarily Doubles oriented, these mons would have a lot more room to shine and pull of their intended Doubles gimmicks.

Not every game has to be Doubles-based, but it would be hella cool if we did have a game that was.

 

[PokemonCrusader]

Every battle should be 6 v 6 at once. Earthquake would be a blast to use.

 

[Chadlad50]

As someone who generally prefers doubles I think it could be interesting, depending on how it's implemented

 

[Siggu]

You can't simply have an official format of double battles while the games themselves are almost only single battles.

The games are supposed to introduce you to mechanics, formats, and why not try to see if you are interested in competitive. But, as double battles became more prominent in official formats, they got less and less representation in the games themselves.

If the game is balanced around doubles, then doubles should be the default format in the story. Heck, why not change the pace a bit and give the player TWO starters at once?

 

[Aduro]

If the game is balanced around doubles, then doubles should be the default format in the story. Heck, why not change the pace a bit and give the player TWO starters at once?

That could have worked in X&Y, since you get a Kanto starter early on anyway.

Although I think it might also be nice if the first and some other battles are 1v1, just because its meant to be a very straightforward tutorial. Even in XD you start out with just Eevee.

 

[Codraroll]

I fully believe the games should embrace Doubles to a much greater degree than they currently do. It's so strange to see so many moves, abilities, items, and even whole Pokémon be so custom-tailored to a play style the games mostly ignore until the credits roll. As an effect, many of these moves, abilities, items, and Pokémon are effectively useless for in-game play, and the intricate strategies you can form around them are unavailable to players. That is, apart from those dedicated enough to face the enormous hike in difficulty to take on the post-game facilities (which, judging by the level of effort Game Freak seems to spend to develop them between games, aren't that many). These strategies may be viable in VGC, but the games don't give you many opportunities to practice with them to learn what they are about. Consider the abilities Plus and Minus, for instance. You could probably use them to great effect if only you could field two Pokémon at the same time, but you're not getting to use them in random battles, and they aren't that good to justify using in the Battle Whatever.

Moreover, as I think I've said several times in the past, defensive or support Pokémon builds are pretty nonviable in Singles. A Pokémon levels up by repeatedly participating in battles where it defeats enemies, but if it takes 20 turns to do so, you won't bother training it for long. Wobbuffet is possibly the ultimate example of a Pokémon that can be invaluable in important battles, but almost impossible to level up so it can participate in them. Exp. Share mechanics help only marginally - it means you'll leave Wobbuffet in the back of your team and learn to play without it unless pressed to use it (and with the difficulty of these games, that realistically won't happen very often). In Singles the road to success is to go on the offensive, defeating tons of enemies quickly, preferably without taking much damage in return. Defensive strategies usually center around taking damage and retaliating with passive damage or counter moves, so you'd have to heal after every battle to make that work. As a result, players equip their defensive Pokémon with offensive moves instead, using them as bad attackers rather than good defenders.

In Doubles, however, a defensive Pokémon can participate on the field, taking attacks for its teammates or boosting their moves, or debuffing its foes, and thus play on its strengths despite not being able to harm the enemy directly. You can use different setups more effectively, such as weather or terrains, or use boosting moves such as Helping Hand to help a spread attack KO the enemies.

Doubles is a more complicated play style to learn, perhaps, and that's probably why the games shy away from it. But once you learn the basics it's also a much deeper and richer play style, while also being faster-paced. That's why it's used in VGC. I really don't like how the single-player campaign of the games mostly ignores it, because so many aspects of the game suffer for it.

 

[Vengeance417]

Doubles should definitely be embraced more. It could serve as a glorified VGC tutorial, showcasing the plethora of different strategies associated with the format.

In fact, idk if this should be considered a hot take or not, but the days of Gym battles specifically being about type effectiveness should be over. They outta be about the aforementioned VGC comps. One gym, likely the 1st Gym, could be about buffing your allies with moves like Helping Hand, Coaching, etc, another could be about speed control, with Trick Room, Tailwind, and/or different forms of speed control like Thunder Wave/Icy Wind/Electro Web, a few could showcase Weather, or Terrains, you get the idea. I think it's time for a lot of these concepts that are usually absent from the general public to become common knowledge.

 

[Bakugames]

Honestly, the only issue i have with doubles in campaign is that they often increase the energy and time to defeat them. Double battles in game are more likely to annoy me after a while, and I know some fans just hate them entirely. Not sure if it would be a worth change

 

[The Mind Electric]

Honestly, the only issue i have with doubles in campaign is that they often increase the energy and time to defeat them. Double battles in game are more likely to annoy me after a while, and I know some fans just hate them entirely. Not sure if it would be a worth change

I tend to get annoyed by Double Battles in-game because I build my teams for Singles effectiveness, and building a team that can be effective in both Singles and Doubles is a pain in the ass. If the game is focused on Doubles from the start, with little to no Singles, I think it'll be more bearable, because then I can plan out my Doubles team without thinking about how it'll perform in Singles.

 

[QuentinQuonce]

If there was a main series game that comes closest to giving Doubles and Singles equal importance, it's probably Emerald.

Just about every area in the game has at least one double battle, but often multiple (either paired trainers like Twins or two or more unrelated trainers who have the potential to gang up on the player). But they're mostly optional or avoidable - and of course, you can generally just fight two potential-double trainers separately - so that any players who really dislike the concept don't have to do it more than they have to. There is that plot-relevant tag battle with Steven vs Maxie and a Magma grunt, but it's the only one of its type. Every facility in the Battle Frontier either has a doubles option (Factory, Dome, Tower, Palace) or incorporates double battles into the format (Pike and Pyramid), barring the Arena which is too specific for that. All rematches with Gym Leaders are double battles, too. Singles is still unquestionably the main style of play, but it's made very clear that doubles is just as legitimate.

Later games retain the "two trainers ganging up on the player" concept in multiple areas, and DPP's subquests with the stat trainers are extremely fun to play, but Emerald really pushes double and tag battles much more than other games do. When you think how little the Unova games promoted triple and rotation battles in comparison it's actually quite bizarre.

I'm not sure I'd enthusiastically embrace a main series game which was mostly double battles (and I love Colosseum and XD, but the focus on doubles is very much part of the novelty of playing them) but I think Emerald's way of doing things is about right. There's enough variety that you aren't doing loads of single battles or loads of doubles, but those people who really don't like doubles can make the conscious choice to avoid them.

 

[Aduro]

In fact, idk if this should be considered a hot take or not, but the days of Gym battles specifically being about type effectiveness should be over. They outta be about the aforementioned VGC comps. One gym, likely the 1st Gym, could be about buffing your allies with moves like Helping Hand, Coaching, etc, another could be about speed control, with Trick Room, Tailwind, and/or different forms of speed control like Thunder Wave/Icy Wind/Electro Web, a few could showcase Weather, or Terrains, you get the idea. I think it's time for a lot of these concepts that are usually absent from the general public to become common knowledge.

True, at the very least hte Elite 4 should not be focused purely on types. There's only so much they can do to make an NPC with a monotype team difficult to sweep. Doubles would give them more playstyles to choose from.

You shouldn't be able to come up against the final boss rush of the game and just sweep a bunch of dragons with ice beam.
Doubles can feel more chaotic too, so even if the AI is simple, it might not be the kind of stupid the player is expecting.

There might be aspects of the Elite 4 being less type-based in BDSP. Flint's team was originally just two fire types, and Cynthia had maybe the most balanced team any NPC has ever had.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

You can't simply have an official format of double battles while the games themselves are almost only single battles.

The games are supposed to introduce you to mechanics, formats, and why not try to see if you are interested in competitive. But, as double battles became more prominent in official formats, they got less and less representation in the games themselves.

If the game is balanced around doubles, then doubles should be the default format in the story. Heck, why not change the pace a bit and give the player TWO starters at once?

This. It's just absolutely ridiculous, especially since there aren't any trainer pair-ups in the latest gens. You only really experience doubles when it's a multi-battle where you carry your likely useless rival leading with their worst mon, or against Twins and the like.

Honestly, Emerald was brilliant for making such a good blend of doubles and singles in the same game. And it's still telling that Singles is the main in-game format because 7 of the gyms, most admin battles, all rival battles, all E4 battles, and most importantly, the Champion battle are on Singles.
Gen 4 kept it. I hardly remember anything about Gen 5 by now, but iirc, that's when pair-ups got cut.

At this point, VGC really should have both a Doubles and Singles format.

 

[Unova Pokemon Trainer]

I's be fine it they did this. In fact I'd like to see a three v three battle. That would be change the gameplay a bit at times.

In fact, I think it would be cool if there was a 2 player multiplayer mode added to the campain story.

 

[Cobalt Empoleon]

Yeah Emerald is so satisfying to play for me because of all the bonus Double battles (although I guess technically most of them are Double battles on your side and Multi battles on the opponents' side).

Another thing worth noting is that it's gotten way more convenient to customise your Pokemon's movesets in recent games, culminating in PL:A just giving you the ability to swap out moves on the spot. This makes a more Doubles-focused game with proper Doubles strategy much more feasible because you can pivot as needed.

It might be a bit messy/immersion-breaking, but I actually think the ideal way to do a game that heavily featured both Singles and Doubles would be for each Pokemon to have a Singles moveset and a Doubles moveset. They'd start off identical for wild mons, but the player would be able to add each new move a Pokemon learns to one or both of its two movesets and the appropriate one would be applied automatically whenever they enter a battle. This would solve an issue I have with some fangames, where you're suddenly thrown into a Double battle against an opponent with an optimised Doubles strategy while your team is 80% built for Singles.

An interesting side-effect of focusing more on Doubles is that AI becomes much more unpredictable in Doubles vs Singles, making battles at least a little harder without any actual improvement in fight design. Tate & Liza are notorious in RSE speedrunning both because it's optimal to just have a slightly underlevelled Swampert + Wingull + Castform (RS) or + Abra + Castform + Taillow (E) at that point and because (iirc) they choose their targets randomly before making their move selections, making it near-impossible to guarantee an easy battle. Doubles AI has changed in later gens but I think it's still unpredictable enough that you can't cheese it as easily as Singles AI.

EDIT: AI also seems better in Doubles because aggressive switching is less effective than it is in Singles, so the inability of the AI to proactively pivot isn't as much of a disadvantage.

 

[Briewear]

Yea honestly in Gen 7 whenever I experienced double battles they were really fun, a nice change to singles. I'm sure I'd like a whole game based around them. So many new strategies to start using as well, could definitely make the game more fun.