Unpopular opinions

[Frostbiyt]

Gonna throw on my historian’s hat for this one, but maybe think about the tech involved as the main factor instead:

Era 1 - Classic Era - 1996-2001
Era 2 - Advance Era - 2002-2005
Era 3 - Dual Screen Era - 2006-2012
Era 4 - The 3D Era - 2013-2018
Era 5 - Home Console Era - 2018-2024
Era 6 - Modern Era - 2025 onwards

Notes:
Eras are largely based on the tech involved, as Pokemon Gens since Gen 3 have been in multiple on the same device.
The longest Era to date is Era 3 due to the nature of the Gen 4 and Gen 5 games development for the DS.
Era 4 and 5 overlap in 2018 due to the release of LGPE in November 2018.
I have deliberately made the “modern era” start from the Switch 2 starting with PLZA - as Switch 2 will bring some changes to gameplay and development.
This is different from “generations” which with the clear exception of Melmetal and Meltan, start and end from the moment a game is released where a new Pokemon can be caught within the boundaries of set games or games on the same or overlapping systems.

For the early eras, I'd argue for
Era 1: RBY - GSC
Era 2: RSE - B2W2
Era 3+: XY on

These breaks are largely along aesthetic lines, though I think there are other aspects tying them together. While the graphical jump from GB to GBC is large, in my opinion the graphics in those games are bad enough that it detracts from the playing experience. RSE are the first games that don't feel difficult to play due to their visuals. From then onward, each new game felt like an incremental update visually, until we jump to 3D with XY.

After that I'd probably say XY - USUM, then SS - Present, which I think lines up with your eras.

 

[Bakugames]

if we want to divide the pokemon games in eras, i think we need to decide the priority of characteristics. to me, visuals are the least important because they all just feel like normal franchise improvements following other game trends and not something that heavily affected pokemon - with the main exception being how designs made in 3d follow different rules and expectations to designs that exist in sprite form.

I think that gameplay is much more important. I think we can fuse the 4 first gens into their own era because the most important changes here were largely on the battle system: from items and the division of special to natures and abilities to the entire phy special split, each game plays completely different from the last one. by gen 5, the changes in the battle system were much more minute: a new ability slot, some type chart changes, usual mechanic tinkering, and team preview which is only relevant in comp. youre not going to play gen 5 that much different from how you played gen 4 really. and sure, the next gens brought in gimmicks and a new type, but they once again dont change how the gameplay works fundamentally.

what you see with bw to swsh thats in common is that every game there is trying to bring in something new to the franchise, and are more likely to break conventions - such as bw2 sequels and their stories, xy megas sumo retooling the evil team concept and regional forms/ubs, swsh doing away with the elite 4, testing open area and dmax. it also started the idea of gamefreak trying out new countries beyond japan.

sv right now imo floats in the placeholder open world era. i would not put it within the previous era, but we simply need more games to make sure: despite it being open world, it is completely possible that sv has more in common with the previous era than the potential era gen 9 and 10 brings

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

This sort of confirms to me why I prefer the tech based eras: here’s enough gameplay differences between gens 1/2 and 3, and then 3 to 4/5 to split them up (double battles, physical/special split) that they could stay separate.

I don’t buy the graphical argument personally: graphics are a product of the hardware which is always of its time.

It’s an interesting discussion though, I like that we all have different takes on it.

 

[Frostbiyt]

I think we can fuse the 4 first gens into their own era because the most important changes here were largely on the battle system: from items and the division of special to natures and abilities to the entire phy special split, each game plays completely different from the last one. by gen 5, the changes in the battle system were much more minute: a new ability slot, some type chart changes, usual mechanic tinkering, and team preview which is only relevant in comp. youre not going to play gen 5 that much different from how you played gen 4 really.

Isn't this an argument that Gen 4 belongs in the same category as Gen 5? If very little changed between these games, they should be in the same category, right?

Further, I'd say that the physical/special split isn't actually that big of a change for regular gameplay. I know I didn't factor it in at all when I was a kid playing Gen 3 and 4. Obviously it was a big deal for the meta, but that's not really what's being discussed. And that's probably the biggest change between Gen 3 and 4, otherwise they are practically identical. Items and abilities however, are a much bigger change, but those were present by the start of Gen 3.

Very little changed mechanically or visually for that stretch of games (RSE - B2W2), so I think they belong together.

This sort of confirms to me why I prefer the tech based eras: here’s enough gameplay differences between gens 1/2 and 3, and then 3 to 4/5 to split them up (double battles, physical/special split) that they could stay separate.


I don’t buy the graphical argument personally: graphics are a product of the hardware which is always of its time.


It’s an interesting discussion though, I like that we all have different takes on it.

Double battles were introduced in Gen 3. And I think the graphics are significant when they actually inhibit you playing the game, which I find is the case in Gen 1 especially, but also Gen 2 to a degree. This is gone by Gen 3.

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

Double battles were introduced in Gen 3.

I’m aware: I didn’t say they weren’t.

And I think the graphics are significant when they actually inhibit you playing the game, which I find is the case in Gen 1 especially, but also Gen 2 to a degree. This is gone by Gen 3.

How?

Because I would argue, having spent the last year replaying a lot of Gen 1-3, that the simpler graphics and gameplay make for a straightforward and pretty clear cut experience that doesn’t hinder playing them at all.

But then I did grow up with them.

 

[Bakugames]

Isn't this an argument that Gen 4 belongs in the same category as Gen 5? If very little changed between these games, they should be in the same category, right?

No, because the eras are separated on what the team was focused on changing: gen 4 marks the end of the era where a game would come in with a new innovation for the battle system, and gen 5 starts the era where we'd keep the battles intact and instead would try to bring in new things to the franchise in other ways.

Further, I'd say that the physical/special split isn't actually that big of a change for regular gameplay. I know I didn't factor it in at all when I was a kid playing Gen 3 and 4. Obviously it was a big deal for the meta, but that's not really what's being discussed. And that's probably the biggest change between Gen 3 and 4, otherwise they are practically identical. Items and abilities however, are a much bigger change, but those were present by the start of Gen 3.

I think you're undermining things a bit here. the physical special split changed how many pokemon played and what moves were good on them even at a casual level. sure, if we're going by just "a kid wouldn't notice this" then its not a big deal, but I know plenty of folks who as kids didnt care for natures, abilities, the special split etc.

it also changed how moves could be designed and applied to pokemon and a moveset from gen 3 could have a totally different implication from a gen 4 one even if the moves are mostly the same

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

I think you're undermining things a bit here. the physical special split changed how many pokemon played and what moves were good on them even at a casual level. sure, if we're going by just "a kid wouldn't notice this" then its not a big deal, but I know plenty of folks who as kids didnt care for natures, abilities, the special split etc.

it also changed how moves could be designed and applied to pokemon and a moveset from gen 3 could have a totally different implication from a gen 4 one even if the moves are mostly the same

I totally agree, physical/special split is one of the big changes Game Freak made and it’s for that reason, IMO, that you have to split Gen 3 from Gen 4 - it changes so much of the core approach to the game and makes the special split into special attack and special defense meaningful from Gen 2.

 

[Bakugames]

I totally agree, physical/special split is one of the big changes Game Freak made and it’s for that reason, IMO, that you have to split Gen 3 from Gen 4 - it changes so much of the core approach to the game and makes the special split into special attack and special defense meaningful from Gen 2.

I think thats fair. personally i prefer keeping eras beefy, because otherwise i think the early gens would get too fractured with gen 1 and 2 being just one era, gen 3 kinda floating by itself and gen 4 only hanging with gen 5

 

[Frostbiyt]

I’m aware: I didn’t say they weren’t.



How?

Because I would argue, having spent the last year replaying a lot of Gen 1-3, that the simpler graphics and gameplay make for a straightforward and pretty clear cut experience that doesn’t hinder playing them at all.

But then I did grow up with them.

I thought you were saying that double battles and the physical special split were the main differences between gens 3 and 4.

I'm having a hard time articulating exactly what I find difficult about playing Gen 1 especially, and Gen 2 to a lesser degree. Essentially, the visual fidelity is low enough that they often struggle to be fully legible to me. It's sort of like trying to play the game while looking at it through rippling water. You can read the text, but the font is blocky enough that it feels slow, menus feel cramped, pokemon sprites are sometimes difficult to parse or just downright ugly (though charming in their own way). Now, this is made a lot better with Yellow and GSC because the color allows for more detail with the same resolution, but I don't think the issue is entirely solved until the resolution and color space upgrades that came with the GBA games. I'd be interested though, to know if people who started later than me feel towards Gen 3 how I feel towards Gen 1 and 2.

No, because the eras are separated on what the team was focused on changing: gen 4 marks the end of the era where a game would come in with a new innovation for the battle system, and gen 5 starts the era where we'd keep the battles intact and instead would try to bring in new things to the franchise in other ways.

I think it just makes more sense to group the games by features they have, not things that they change from their predecessors. The beginning of an era is typically marked by change, not by the lack of it. Though I do get your point.

I think you're undermining things a bit here. the physical special split changed how many pokemon played and what moves were good on them even at a casual level. sure, if we're going by just "a kid wouldn't notice this" then its not a big deal, but I know plenty of folks who as kids didnt care for natures, abilities, the special split etc.

I don't think the change was insignificant, I just think that it's much less significant than, say, abilities or held items. Obviously this is anecdotal, but I did care about those as a kid. And from a more objective point of view, those mechanics forced you to understand them. You can't make it through a game unaware of items or abilities. The same can't be said for the physical special split. Abilities and items also mattered outside of battle, whereas the split didn't.

Gen 3 overhauled how Pokémon stats worked to the point they decided to make them incompatible with Gen 2, introduced abilities and natures, and were a large step forward visually. Gen 4 introduced the physical special split and online play (this is a bigger deal than the split imo, but I don't think it really hits its stride til Gen 6). Gen 5 introduces hidden abilites. Gen 6 introduced Megas (marking the beginning of the battle gimmick era) and changed the graphics to 3D, by far the biggest change since Gen 2 to 3. To me it's pretty clear that the transition from gens 2 to 3 and 5 to 6 mark major shifts in the games. 3 to 4 is probably the next biggest, I just don't think that generation is different enough to be its own thing.

 

[Hugin]

Gen 1-2: The Debut. The era they're figuring everything out. The games are brand-new, there's no rules, etc. Arguably this is defined purely by vibes, but I think GSC wasn't sure what a generation was, and RSE knew exactly what one was.
Gen 3-7: 2D's Heyday. They're still experimenting(they never stop), but this is when they mostly aren't making major changes. The graphics get upgrades, there's the P/S split, they eliminate the grid, test out super-mechanics(Hidden Abilities arguably the first one of those), but I think if you give a Hoenn player USUM they'd consider it a perfectly normal pokemon game.
Gen 8+: Open World. With the introduction of the Wild Area and the ending of isometric 2D, I think this is the biggest change in the series.

Now of course you can argue all of these. I think the key for me is that Gen 3 and 8 were clearly trying things that 4 and 9 built onto, so it makes sense to group the beta versions with the polished ones.

 

[Bakugames]

is this how scientists who debate taxonomy nomenclature and grouping feel like

 

[Bog Monster]

I just think of them by connectivity and transfers.
1-2: game to game (gameboy). Ez
3-5: game to game (gba/ds). These gens have built-in transfers and interactions with each other. Pal park and dual-slot mode in 4; poke-transfer, dream radar cart bonuses, and transfer-only events in 5
6-7: game to bank. Transfers now require external software.
Go, 8-9: game to home. External software is now more than storage, allowing trades and, with the advent of champions, battles.

This also puts VC rby/gsc into gen 7 and lgpe into gen 8.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

I think thats fair. personally i prefer keeping eras beefy, because otherwise i think the early gens would get too fractured with gen 1 and 2 being just one era, gen 3 kinda floating by itself and gen 4 only hanging with gen 5

Gameplay-wise, that's pretty much what happens tho.

Gens 1-2 are wildly different from the rest and even themselves.
Gen 3 is completely isolated as the in-between of the Gameboy and DS era.
Gens 4-5 aren't that different mechanically, so they get to get lumped together.
Gens 6-7 are a 3D era, but they're different from the current era. I'll explain why in a bit.
Gens 8-9 overhaul wild encounters and many other features in the name of planting the seeds for open worlds and more immersion. The results may vary, but the philosophy is there.

Separating them like this make it seem like they're not a massive gap, but again, SwSh is over 5 years old. There has been a design philosophy shift.

 

[Nickeljorn]

I'm glad you pointed that out. It felt like RBY wasn't afraid to make pokemon not a complete utopia unlike the other 8 Regions. It's not anything crazy, but it has a subtle edge to its worldbuilding. Things like the biker gang in the cycling road, who literally threaten to steal your shit illustrate that feeling.
Also, it kinda reminds me of Earthbound and Onett, the town being filled with a gang run by mobsters led by Frank.
Makes more sense when you know that most of the RBY staff also worked on Earthbound.

Playing EarthBound and EarthBound Beginnings (as well as other non-Pokemon RPGs) made me appreciate RBY and their remakes a lot because it explains not only story elements in RBY that are different from later games like you mentioned but gameplay too, like TMs being single use made more sense to me once I saw RBY as late in life Gameboy games and not part of a franchise as huge as Pokemon is now.

I just think of them by connectivity and transfers.
1-2: game to game (gameboy). Ez
3-5: game to game (gba/ds). These gens have built-in transfers and interactions with each other. Pal park and dual-slot mode in 4; poke-transfer, dream radar cart bonuses, and transfer-only events in 5
6-7: game to bank. Transfers now require external software.
Go, 8-9: game to home. External software is now more than storage, allowing trades and, with the advent of champions, battles.

This also puts VC rby/gsc into gen 7 and lgpe into gen 8.

Why would the VC versions be gen 7 if the process is the same as transferring from gen 5 (select the game from the menu, only your first box, etc)

 

[Mad Ram]

I just think of them by connectivity and transfers.
1-2: game to game (gameboy). Ez
3-5: game to game (gba/ds). These gens have built-in transfers and interactions with each other. Pal park and dual-slot mode in 4; poke-transfer, dream radar cart bonuses, and transfer-only events in 5
6-7: game to bank. Transfers now require external software.
Go, 8-9: game to home. External software is now more than storage, allowing trades and, with the advent of champions, battles.

This also puts VC rby/gsc into gen 7 and lgpe into gen 8.

I think this general system is the closest to an actual "eras system" for the games, at least from a gut perspective. I especially think it is fair to break up the "early 3D era" with "modern 3D era" if only because of the more risks they've been willing to take in regards to how the game plays. XY and ORAS are definitely not really in the same boat as SwSh, L:A, or SV unless you're one of those people who claim this was the beginning of the death of the franchise and it's been one long decline

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Y'all will probably call me crazy for this but...

Bug is not the worst type in the game.

I've been seeing many people talk about Bug as it's completely unviable, but I think a lot of it is still related to mons like Beedrill, Ledian, and Spidops, who are just weak no matter how you slice it.

If you look at the bigger picture though, Bug has been getting some insane moves over the years, and it's going to get out of hand at some point.

• U-Turn has been a very strong move since Gen 4, it's so good, it's theorized to be the only reason Fairy resists Bug.
• Bug has many moves that are guaranteed to debuff opponents, which is interesting with how much powercreep has been an issue lately. They range from weak, in-game options like Pounce, and Struggle Bug to competitively viable like Lunge, Sticky Web, and, to some extent (90% accuracy), Skitter Smack.
• Lunge, in particular, has been on my radar for a minute. That move is insane. Solid, reliable damage, and it's a guaranteed Attack drop? That's pretty wild.

There are a lot of Bug mons that are outright bad, no question about it, but what about the ones that aren't?
Scizor just made it back to OU, and it's not like Volcarona is bad either. There are other examples in other tiers, such as Heracross.

Bug has been forming a strong identity over the years, and it's interesting to see how it'll pan out. Right now, I'd put it over Ice and Rock tbh, and around the same tier as Normal.

 

[bdt2002]

Well, well, well. What do we have here? A discussion about the different eras of Pokémon? I love this topic. Thing is, there’s a lot of different ways to do this, and none of them are strictly wrong answers. I’ve said it several times by this point and I’ll say it as many times as I have to. The way that I prefer to divide these up isn’t by console generation or, well, Pokémon generation (and even then it seems like the Switch games specifically are trying to move away from the conventional definition of a Pokémon generation) but instead by the person or people that worked on the games and all the other media of that time. When you look at the lead directors of each new “generation” in particular, you get a pattern like this:

• Gens 1-2: Led by Satoshi Tajiri
• Gens 3-6: Led by Junichi Masuda
• Gens 7-present: Led by Shigeru Ohmori

The specific people and their names are one part of this, sure, but what you really want to pay attention to is what was happening with the franchise as an I.P. during each of these time frames. For example: the rise of Pokémon’s mobile and free-to-start game markets as a sort of “replacement” for many of the spin-off games we saw during the so-called “Masuda Era” is largely synonymous with the “Ohmori Era”, specifically from 2016 to present day. Most of the most popular spin-off series- Mystery Dungeon, Colloseum, Ranger, PokéPark, Rumble to a lesser extent (World and especially the discontinued Rush feel like Ohmori Era games)… almost all of those were Masuda Era games.

Something else that doesn’t get talked about a lot is how similar Gen 7 is to Gens 8 and 9. Yearly releases are most criticized on Switch, but this trend goes back to Sun & Moon. You know what else was supposed to originally start in Alola? Dexit. X & Y have a somewhat similar issue to this, but this is helped by the fact that every Pokémon not available in X & Y is technically available in at least one form in ORAS (provided a handful are exclusive to the Mirage Spots which are heavily dependent on StreetPass and the Internet). To my knowledge, the combination of all four Alola versions still doesn’t allow you to get all 802 or whatever the number was at that point. I do believe there are still some Pokémon missing that aren’t Mythicals. Speaking of Alola’s four games, Ultra Sun & Ultra Moon remind me of the DLCs for SwSh and SV respectively- three year release pattern started with ORAS, tons of returning Legendaries locked behind some kind of new item or minigame, and there’s at least some extra emphasis on the postgame in all of these whereas their base games focused almost entirely on the main stories, much like Kanto, Hoenn, and Kalos did back in the day.

I understand this post was a lot of word salad so here’s a quick rundown of what every Directorial Era of Pokémon is or can be known for:

• The Tajiri Era: Obviously was the start of the franchise, largely synonymous with the Game Boy and Game Boy Color, the anime was originally going to wrap up with the Mewtwo movie, and basically every spin-off is an N64 game. This era is what people think of when the term “Pokémania” comes up. Kanto and Johto’s connections to each other need no introduction, though the Johto Pokémon get the short end of the stick in many cases. This was also the era that played host to Pokémon’s most notorious Type of all time, Gen 1 Psychic, and had different stat mechanics than later generations would become known for, a change that also reflects in Gen 2’s Shiny Pokémon introduction and mechanics.

• The Masuda Era: The longest era of the three in duration so far, lasting until either 2014 or 2016 depending on when you consider the Ohmori Era to have started (either with ORAS or SM). This is when most people around my age group and many others would consider the golden age of Pokémon to have taken place. This era was when the third version games started focusing on “restricted Legendaries” (Suicune in Crystal doesn’t count) and was also the first one to have remakes. FireRed & LeafGreen and HeartGold & SoulSilver link to each other just like how Ruby & Sapphire links to Diamond & Pearl. Later in this era, X & Y would share many similarities with Gen 3, a pattern that would ultimately culminate in ORAS’s role as a “Passing of the Torch” between this era and the next one. The spin-offs of this era were already mentioned.

• The Ohmori Era: Should this era continue into and through 2026-28, this will at worst tie the length of the previous era. As mentioned previously, mobile games and free-to-starts have largely taken over traditional spin-offs by this point, and remakes have replaced to some extent by the Legends games which started during this era. Ash’s tenure as the anime’s main star finally came to an end here, and Journeys could be seen as a sort of sequel/successor to the Alola anime. Third versions have been replaced by the Ultra games and the DLCs respectively (I would imagine USUM would have been DLCs if Alola was one of the Switch regions alongside what would become Galar and Paldea).

 

[bdt2002]

FireRed & LeafGreen and HeartGold & SoulSilver link to each other just like how Ruby & Sapphire links to Diamond & Pearl. Later in this era, X & Y would share many similarities with Gen 3, a pattern that would ultimately culminate in ORAS’s role as a “Passing of the Torch” between this era and the next one.

I apologize for the double post, but I wanted to include an extra snippet of sorts to talk about ORAS. Most of the time I would consider Sun & Moon to have been the official start of the Ohmori Era but some of what that era would become known for actually started here. By definition these are still Masuda Era games directed by Shigeru Ohmori, and I believe this to be intentional based on developer comments from Junichi Masuda himself in the 2010s when asked about Ohmori’s role as Masuda’s “successor”, as he referred to him as.

As luck would have it, ORAS happen to be some of my favorite games in the franchise and some of the only games I could reasonably see giving Guardian Signs my beloved a run for its money for the ultimate top spot outright. Oh hey they even referenced it with the Soaring minigame, I knew I loved this game for a reason! This kind of “Passing of the Torch” isn’t something we’ve really seen from any game before or since unless you count Crystal (and even then it’s still somewhat up in the air), and the reason this works so well is because players get the best of both eras when games like this come out. We saw something similar to this happen with 2017’s Super Mario Odyssey, a game that saw many developers and ideas return from Super Mario 3D World while also representing Odyssey’s own director upgrade from co-director of last 3D game to “Now I’m allowed to fully explore my career role and make my own style reminiscent of the nonlinear 3D Mario games”, in comparison to the Galaxy games and the 3D sub-series. And we all know how good Odyssey was in terms of popularity and sales.

The two year stretch between ORAS and Sun & Moon was a notably one of the most unique in the core series’s history at the time, too. It was the last time until 2024 where we didn’t get a new Pokémon… anything for the core series during a specific year, and we saw both free-to-start spin-offs (Rumble World and Shuffle) and traditional spin-offs (Super Mystery Dungeon) in 2015. Speaking of 2015, Pokémon Z. Uh… where is it? The absence and rumored cancellation of an upper version and/or sequels for Kalos, possibly similar to Unova’s own sequels, remains a popular topic of discussion that’s only just recently being acknowledged with Pokémon Legends ZA on the horizon. Pokémon Z wasn’t the only game we the fans got robbed of, though. Eagle-eyed Hoenn fans may have spotted story details in the Delta Episode and the rest of the postgame of ORAS that seem to suggest that, in the ORAS universe of Hoenn, the events of Pokémon Emerald take place after those of the first two versions as opposed to the original “third version” role. “Pokémon Delta Emerald” was even straight-up granted its own trademark in 2015, an honor that not even Pokémon Z was given back then, and overall I just find it a funny and strange coincidence that Rayquaza and Zygarde have so much in common anyway. Neither of these games would come to light, unfortunately, at least on 3DS.

Key Questions:

• Would you count ORAS as a Masuda Era game, an Ohmori Era game, or count it for both? (My answer: Both)
• If you could only pick one, would you have preferred Pokémon Z or Pokémon Delta Emerald to become a real game and likely the final Gen 6 game by extension? (My answer: Delta Emerald)
• Do you think it is at all possible that Legends ZA could have the ORAS treatment and possibly be the start of the fourth Directorial Era? (My answer: Possibly but probably not)

 

[Adeleine]

Y'all will probably call me crazy for this but...

Bug is not the worst type in the game.

I've been seeing many people talk about Bug as it's completely unviable, but I think a lot of it is still related to mons like Beedrill, Ledian, and Spidops, who are just weak no matter how you slice it.

If you look at the bigger picture though, Bug has been getting some insane moves over the years, and it's going to get out of hand at some point.

• U-Turn has been a very strong move since Gen 4, it's so good, it's theorized to be the only reason Fairy resists Bug.
• Bug has many moves that are guaranteed to debuff opponents, which is interesting with how much powercreep has been an issue lately. They range from weak, in-game options like Pounce, and Struggle Bug to competitively viable like Lunge, Sticky Web, and, to some extent (90% accuracy), Skitter Smack.
• Lunge, in particular, has been on my radar for a minute. That move is insane. Solid, reliable damage, and it's a guaranteed Attack drop? That's pretty wild.

There are a lot of Bug mons that are outright bad, no question about it, but what about the ones that aren't?
Scizor just made it back to OU, and it's not like Volcarona is bad either. There are other examples in other tiers, such as Heracross.

Bug has been forming a strong identity over the years, and it's interesting to see how it'll pan out. Right now, I'd put it over Ice and Rock tbh, and around the same tier as Normal.

The 'Bug unviable' and 'Ice unviable' people are just stuck in Gen3/4 (or discourse that originated from that time, or earlier). In addition to what you mentioned, HDB has been big for Bug.

I'd roughly tier the types like this. (unordered within tier)

 

[War Incarnate]

The 'Bug unviable' and 'Ice unviable' people are just stuck in Gen3/4 (or discourse that originated from that time, or earlier). In addition to what you mentioned, HDB has been big for Bug.

I'd roughly tier the types like this. (unordered within tier)

View attachment 753167

I'll be honest - Poison being in "Underpowered" is kind of crazy. It has a decent amount of resists and only two weaknesses (one of which is a top tier type, the other is... bleh) - is it because of its lacking offensive coverage? (strange, since hitting Fairy super-effectively is quite big!) Or some other reason?

If this was pre-Gen 6 discourse I'd see an argument about Poison being underwhelming as a type, but I'd like to see your reasoning for putting Poison in particular as low as you have considering the changes that have been made since then.

 

[Bakugames]

Hold on im lost are we talking about the types overall, casual only or competitive only

 

[bdt2002]

The 'Bug unviable' and 'Ice unviable' people are just stuck in Gen3/4 (or discourse that originated from that time, or earlier). In addition to what you mentioned, HDB has been big for Bug.

I'd roughly tier the types like this. (unordered within tier)

View attachment 753167

I’m going to have to disagree with some of this about the Bug-Type but not all of it. I made what I guess you could call a “statistical aggregate” ranking of every single Type in the modern Type chart, and I while I don’t believe Scarlet & Violet to have a definitive worst Type especially in an environment with Terastalizing as a mechanic- in fact, some Types are arguably better as a Tera Type than a regular Type- I do believe Gen 9 to be a somewhat low point for the Bug-Type relative to other generations.

The issue here isn’t with Heavy-Duty Boots- unpopular opinion within an opinion, but I think Bug-Types should be able to absorb Sticky Web like Poison can for Toxic Spikes- or with any of the type matchups, but with the Pokémon themselves. If we’re going off of Smogon’s tiers, in fact, the Bug-Type actually had the most OU and/or Ubers Pokémon it’s ever had during Gens 4 and 5 with as many as five a piece at a time. The Bug-Type is one of those Types where the matchup spread doesn’t tell the whole story, and if you look at the roster, the Pokémon seem to back this up: Forretress was a four-time OU member prior to Gen 6, Scizor was buffed to freaking moon in Platinum and had people calling for tiering action during its prime, Volcarona and Genesect lead a stacked cast of Gen 5 Bug-Types across various tiers, and even Gens 2-3 OU Bug Heracross ended up as one of the better Gen 4 UUBLs after starting Diamond & Pearl in OU and getting a real Ubers niche for the first time as a Darkrai answer. All of this, by the way, while entry hazards and passive damage were stronger than ever before, other Types around Bug got stronger, and Heracross and Ninjask would both lose their Gen 4 OU status over time and Heracross would become UU prior in Gen 5, which is still solid I think.

By comparison, Bug-Types lost a lot of tools on the Nintendo Switch. Heavy-Duty Boots might help against Stealth Rock, which is fair, but it does so at the cost of indirectly nerfing Sticky Web. The Ultra Beasts got Dexited from Scarlet & Violet and Mega Evolutions aren’t there or in Sword & Shield, so there goes some of the best modern Bug-Types by default. Volcarona and a buffed Araquanid are entirely carrying the Bug typing in Scarlet & Violet’s meta now, and that’s all without mentioning how Fairies resist U-Turn, how several physical Bug-Types either lack or lost good physical boosting moves to match Quiver Dance, or the fact that Bug, as one of the worst offensive Types in the game, can be taken advantage of in that aspect with common defensive Tera Types that your opponent may already be running for other threats anyways such as Fire, Poison, Steel, or Flying. Overall, I don’t quite thing Bug is the worst Type in the games right now, and I also don’t believe Bug is anywhere near as bad as it was back in Gen 1, but this is definitely the worst it’s been in quite some time, at least in Singles. I’m not totally sure about Doubles, but many Bugs don’t enjoy the Tailwind mechanics, Max Airstreams, and defensive Tera Types of Gens 8 and 9 VGC. That, and two of the best Psychic-Types block Lokix’s First Impression (Armor Tail Farigiraf and Psychic Surge Indeedee) with their Abilities so that’s pretty unfortunate.

On my aggregate rankings I had said I made, I came up with five Types in contention for the bottom spot. My Bottom Tier ended up with Bug, Grass, Normal, Ice, and surprisingly Psychic (and Poison prior to Gen 6) as the worst Types each for their own reasons. Grass and Bug have a lot of the same issues, but Grass has slightly better weighted matchups against Water, Electric, and Ground while both types have the worst offensive matchup record and are tied with Normal for their worst matchup performance overall. Ice is included for being the worst defensive Type by far, though it too has better weighted matchups and benefits more than Bug from Heavy-Duty Boots and even has its own field condition (Hail/Snow). Psychic rounds out the bottom tier with its weighted weaknesses to Ghost and Dark as well as being one of only two Types alongside Grass with a losing record on both offense and defense. Psychic Terrain was also nerfed in Gen 8 and the Calyrexes do like 95 percent of the heavy lifting for this Type in restricted metas.

 

[Heatranator]

The only underpowered type is Psychic. They have some things like psychic noise and future sight, but every other type is better by a decent amount (poison is amazing defensively once you look past the ground weakness and many useful status moves, rock has multiple moves that define metas (stealth rock, rock slide) and good pokemon in said category (tyranitar, garganacl) that use the good attributes of rock).
If you really think about it, psychic is really just something that most mons that have it try to overcome. Really the only mons that like the typing are the fairy/psychic types, and even then stuff like the dark neutrality are a downside.

 

[Adeleine]

I probably only have so much energy for digging into the nitty gritty of type stuff - if I don't respond to someone that is probably why - but here we go.

(Part 1)

Hold on im lost are we talking about the types overall, casual only or competitive only

My views are only about singles competitive

I'll be honest - Poison being in "Underpowered" is kind of crazy. It has a decent amount of resists and only two weaknesses (one of which is a top tier type, the other is... bleh) - is it because of its lacking offensive coverage? (strange, since hitting Fairy super-effectively is quite big!) Or some other reason?

If this was pre-Gen 6 discourse I'd see an argument about Poison being underwhelming as a type, but I'd like to see your reasoning for putting Poison in particular as low as you have considering the changes that have been made since then.

Micro-Level View:

1) Majority of its resists are low value (Bug, Grass, and Itself are 3/5)
2) It is not only weak to a top tier offensive type, but a common and top tier offensive coverage type, which undermines its defensive profile even more than it looks like
3) Dreadful physical attack options. 80% "accurate" mainstream option, and some don't even get that. Stone Edge has amazing coverage to justify that, Gunk Shot doesn't.
4) Hitting one good type does not mean it has replacement-level offensive coverage. By this logic, Bug (Dark) and Grass (Water; Ground) have good coverage. Five resists/immune (including to three of the best types in the game) and two SE is still a bad profile, even when one of the SE is a good type.
5) Having an immunity against Poison, and it being the best defensive type in a game, makes the type a lot less safe to click on offense in general.

Macro-Level View:

Poison has bottom-tier potential for positive impact in a game. It has one positive matchup against an above-average type in Fairy, which top-tier Steel also covers well, both offensively and defensively. Besides this one positive matchup, what is Poison doing? Its other resistances are mostly filler (even Fighting is just average), its other offensive coverage is horrible, its offensive options are poor-to-average, and its closest thing to unique traits (more access to Toxic Spikes, clearing Toxic Spikes without using a move, more access to Toxic) are very situational.

Compare types in the tier above. Bug has bad generalist defense but Poison was merely decent anyway, and Bug has a vastly better movepool for offense and utility. Grass has two positive top-tier matchups versus one and way bigger utility, including the threat of sun offense. Normal has a much more important and unique defensive matchup against Ghost, and generally has more moves to work with, like physical STAB that doesn't miss and hurts stuff. Ice is generally scary to deal with.

 

[bdt2002]

The only underpowered type is Psychic. They have some things like psychic noise and future sight, but every other type is better by a decent amount (poison is amazing defensively once you look past the ground weakness and many useful status moves, rock has multiple moves that define metas (stealth rock, rock slide) and good pokemon in said category (tyranitar, garganacl) that use the good attributes of rock).
If you really think about it, psychic is really just something that most mons that have it try to overcome. Really the only mons that like the typing are the fairy/psychic types, and even then stuff like the dark neutrality are a downside.

In my post above I mentioned that Grass and Psychic are the only Types that have a losing record both offensively and defensively. Ironically, part of what made Gen 1 Psychic so dominant for so long was that it remains the only Type in any Type chart to have a WINNING record both offensively and defensively, even if just barely. The thing is with both Grass and Psychic, though, is that I would argue they’re at their strongest as utility Types rather than dedicated offensive or defensive use. Tera Grass is one of the best defensive Tera Types in the game in my opinion but that’s only specifically as a Tera Type, and outside of Teal Mask Ogerpon being one of the weaker forms, I can’t remember the last time I’ve seen someone run a Tera Psychic Pokémon on the OU ladder.

Utility, though? Things are noticeably better, and unfortunately held back by the rises of Ghost and to a lesser extent Dark’s offensive spread. Two of the best utility moves in the game, Spore and post-buff Teleport, are these Types. The Terrains may have been nerfed, sure, but gradual healing and especially priority blocking are both excellent tools to have. Moves you mentioned like Psychic Noise and Future Sight thrive off of their respective utility, and Grass and healing and healing have always gone together nicely.

Psychic’s Problems from the perspective of an uneducated guy who has this as one his top three favorite types alongside water and poison:

• Weak to common attacks like U-Turn and Knock Off (and Pursuit prior to Gen 8)
• Poor matchup spreads offensively and defensively
• Several prominent nerfs over various generations
• Not nearly as many new Poison-Types added in newer generations, specifically compared to Gen 1
• Fairy gives Psychic competition for the role of Fighting check
• Generally low base power attacks with more emphasis on utility
• Low amount of parity between top-tier Pokémon of this Type