Unpopular opinions

I have been thinking about Pokemon and this discussion and I do agree with what Kurona says, Pokemon doesn't take risks. Each follows an incredibly basic formula: Player starts in town. Has friends Meets villanous team. Beats gyms. Beats Villanous team. Catches Legendary. Challenges E4. Wins. Challenge champion. Wins. Once you've played a Pokemon game, you've played them all. This combined, with the the basic gameplay since Gen 1, makes these games incredibly stale for veteran players. And whenever they promise on "changing" the formula, they really don't. The Island challenge was promised to be a change, but it was nothing more than a gym with an additonal boss fight. The fight with N was technically a champion fight since N was a champion previously by defeating Alder. Its very annoying that Pokemon does not take risks like Mario and Zelda does. If any company should do it, its Pokemon! There so rich, they can afford at least one black sheep in the series. What I want something I want is something like FE: Awakening vs FE: Echoes: Shadows of Valentia: 2 games with the same engine and grid battlefield, but each very different gameplay mechanics, so they really aren't the same. I love Pokemon, but the same mechanics with little change is starting to bore me.

And whenever they introduce a new mechanic, they insist on carrying it over to the next games. If Mega Evolution was introduced in like Mario, they'd keep it for those games and related sequels, but would most likely drop it for non-direct sequels. The introduction of Mega Evolution had no place in Alola, and Hoenn's story had to be remodeled just for the sake of it.

Let's also think of another problem: Time. How often do we get Pokemon games now? 1-2 years. That's really fast compared to other franchises. Most game on a regular basis don't go through this. This really burns out players, especially from the competitive side, since all the cartridge formats always use the latest game. ( Let's also not forget how annoying the new version is if its basically the same game with minor tweaks. USUM has convinced me not to ever buy the 3rd version if its the same story with slightly increased content. ) If there concern is money, why don't they just do DLC or sell Amiibo? That would sell like hot cakes and not burn players out.

Pikachu315111 , I was thinking about how to change the mechanics.... How about something like Pokemon Conquest? I remember playing game and loved it. Too bad it never had a sequel. It would keep the turn-based gameplay, but it would make the gameplay fresh for veteran players. For those of you don't know, Pokemon Conquest is a crossover between Pokemon and Nobunaga's Ambition. It would have a turned based mechanics, but instead of players sharing the same turn, it would be a player and an enemy phase, with the player moving on the player phase, and the enemy phase having the enemies move. Also, the battlefield takes place on a grid, with factors like terrain and obstacles coming in play. ( Only water types could traverse water, flying types or levitate can go over air, fire over magma, etc. ) Mechanics like Abillities, Stats, and moves exist, but are a lot simplified. Moves are most notable: Each Pokemon only has one move for the entire game, and there stuck with it. That's the only complaint about Conquest. If I were to change it, it would be that once you select a move for use on your phase, and you can't change it til your next phase. ( In the case of two turn attacks, you charge as normal, but even if you opponent moves away from the range, they connect the next turn. ) Abillities were the same case, except most Pokemon had 3 abillities, some from the core RPGs and others unique to Conquest. Stats were simplified, but there was no speed due to being a player phase and enemy phase, thus making speed irrelevant. Warriors had also skills they could use too.

Anyway... This is just a suggestion. It'll probably not happen with the current GF staff though.
 
Last edited:
There's nothing wrong with formulaic in my opinion, the problem is all in execution. It feeling same-y is all GF's fault, they created a foundation but don't want to build anything grand on top of it and risking changing the foundation in some way. Mario games and Zelda games all share a similar foundation to one another, but the difference with them is that they make the games separate from one another thus allowing them to have major mechanic changes. And as always story is a major issue. Mario games have a simplistic story but they make up for that with different major mechanics which become the games focus. Zelda is an action adventure game but it has a deeper story and world lore, thus while you may be following the same beats as other Zelda it feels like a different experience (and once again it has major mechanic changes between games which are focused heavily upon).

Pokemon is an interesting beast in this sense as any major mechanic they introduce there's an expectation for them to carry over as you can transfer Pokemon up to the next games. Now, you'd think with a system like that, where major mechanic changes bring in big risks that they'd work to fully develop mechanics they do have, introduce new big major mechanics when needed and fully flesh that out, and instead work on making the game's story and world deep creating a different experience that way (not to mention making the regions feel different from one another). But instead:

1. When it comes to fleshing out mechanics they just don't seem interested in doing that after the generation the mechanic is introduced in. Old mechanics usually are left to the wayside with maybe doing one or two small things that affect them.

2. Meanwhile it feels like every gen now they're introducing this new SUPER mechanic... which gets pushed to the wayside when the next gen comes. Mega Evolutions has plenty left to do with and Z-Moves is open to many possibilities but these once new toys have lost their luster and now the bored child that is GF wants a new toy.

3. And they're so busying thinking up of the new toy and how to implement it into the game the story takes a backseat. It feels like Gen V's gimmick was having a more involved story followed by the next paired games being sequels, but now that they been there done that the stories have returned to being simplistic with maybe having some interesting characters to carry it through.

4. And the regions don't feel that different from one another because they all usually share the same kind of environments, them having unique environment locations is the exception and not the rule, preferring to use these set pieces to set regions apart instead of working to make the entire region feel different. Heck the cultures of the Pokemon world feel completely homogenize the regions might as well be next door to each other rather then being continents apart.

And whenever they introduce a new mechanic, they insist on carrying it over to the next games. If Mega Evolution was introduced in like Mario, they'd keep it for those games and related sequels, but would most likely drop it for non-direct sequels. The introduction of Mega Evolution had no place in Alola, and Hoenn's story had to be remodeled just for the sake of it.

The thing is, in Alola they did try to shove Mega Evolution into being post game content. Though that's just a small part of the bigger issue: for all the hullabaloo they make about these new major mechanics they themselves rarely use them. How many trainers use Mega Evolution or Z-Moves? Only a handful of important characters or notable trainers you had to go out of your way to challenge. While early on they would be sparse as you progress you should be seeing more and more common trainers using these mechanics to not only provide a challenge but show the value and usefulness (and coolness) of these major mechanics and if you want to be the best you better start using them too.

Let's also think of another problem: Time. How often do we get Pokemon games now? 1-2 years. That's really fast compared to other franchises. Most game on a regular basis don't go through this. This really burns out players, especially from the competitive side, since all the cartridge formats always use the latest game. ( Let's also not forget how annoying the new version is if its basically the same game with minor tweaks. USUM has convinced me not to ever buy the 3rd version if its the same story with slightly increased content. ) If there concern is money, why don't they just do DLC or sell Amiibo? That would sell like hot cakes and not burn players out.

I REALLY hope after going to the Switch they finally being to slow down again with the new games because the lack of development time is really showing. They needed to rush Gen VI because they were late getting a Pokemon game onto the 3DS, they then rushed Gen VII because they wanted a new generation for their 20th anniversary instead of just releasing Z version like they should have, and now they're once again being rushed to release Gen VIII onto the Switch. After this there should be no other reason to be releasing a Pokemon game every year or two because GF have shown they're not that kind of game developer, they need time.

And they also gotta learn what works. EVERY future third version/second paired game should be a sequel to the initial paired games (or if they want to experiment, a pre-quel; or maybe have it taking place at the same time but focused on another trainer's journey which they could have added allusions to in the initial paired games). That or it should be a VERY different alternate timeline with major changes to give a completely different story (not USUM's "same story but we got these weird space guys running around now").

How about something like Pokemon Conquest?

That's fine for a spin off series, but not so sure about the core series.
 
There so rich, they can afford at least one black sheep in the series.
Enter: Pokemon Let's Go Pikachu and Eevee.

USUM has convinced me not to ever buy the 3rd version if its the same story with slightly increased content.
Agreed, though the biggest issue with USUM was that they released it a year after the initial SM. Their justification was that fans didn't like SM so they wanted to come up with a "new" Alolan adventure to hopefully leave a better impression of it. It was poorly executed with essentially the same storyline, and new features that were unnecessarily overhyped (hello Mantine Surf) as well as cut scenes. A sequel would've been much better, and now they're coming out with what looks to be a disaster of PLG.
 
Pokemon is an interesting beast in this sense as any major mechanic they introduce there's an expectation for them to carry over as you can transfer Pokemon up to the next games.
This is something I can't agree with. We live in an era where Game Freak was quite miraculously able to create a system where you could transfer Pokémon from Gen 1 VC games to Gen 7 games when everyone thought that couldn't be done. If they can do that, I see no reason they wouldn't be able to transfer Gen 7/8/whatever to something completely different as well.
 
This may be more related to the discussion on the last page, and some in the PLG thread, but after some pondering I think I've finally found a metaphor to explain the discrepancy between casual and competitive Pokémon: The good ol' needle in a haystack idiom.

Obtaining a good, competitive-ready Pokémon on a cartridge is like sifting through a haystack to find a needle. There's a lot of random number generation that determines whether you find what you're looking for or not, but luckily you're allowed as much time in the haystack as you need. Some haystacks can only be sifted through once per save, though. Sure, in recent generations the developers have added tools to make the process faster and more convenient, but you've still got that haystack to look through every time you need a new needle.

The Pokémon games are all about the haystacks themselves. Much care is put into providing an amazing variety in straws, how you can find different straws in every playthrough, and even if you and your friend find straws of the same species, they will still vary in their aspects. There's so much straw available that if you pick randomly from the stack, you'll never find two identical straws.

But competitive play, VGC included, is effectively about sewing. It's where players bring the sharpest and shiniest objects they've found in their haystacks, and compete by putting them to use. You need needles of different varieties to gain any amount of success there. Yet there's still the haystack to go through every time you need a new needle. You test your sewing skills against other players, but the cartridge games are all about haystacks. To get anywhere in the sewing competitions, you need to sift through an obscene amount of hay.

Is there any surprise that people decide to go get boxes of needles instead, and use them for the sewing contests? Or they can go to Showdown, which basically is a sewing competition where everybody has access to an instant-needle-making machine to suit any sewing style. That way, people can actually practice embroidery instead of spending most of their time standing up to their waist in hay, feebly waving around the little magnets the cartridges provide to help them (since Gen VI, at least).

Nintendo and Game Freak promote their own sewing competitions, but they still insist that you need that haystack. Every time. And every new generation makes all the needles you've already put in your pincushion illegal. Something in here smells of terrible game design. Or maybe it's just my hay fever.
 
Actually, I would argue that they **DID** take a "risk" in a big game design altering change with PLGO (which they insist in calling main series) and it was received with massive criticism so far.

Sooooooooo.... Maybe better if they stick at their formula.

As for SUPER features, the other issue i have with them is that they so far left them abandoned. Megas got basically abandoned in gen 7 (they are still in game, but no new mega has happened, nor they were integrated in the story in basically any way while USUM could easily have offered the option to integrate them as it's supposed to be an alternative timeline kinda like ORAS is to RSE), I wouldn't be surprised if Z-moves are completely abandoned in gen 8 as well, and you just "happen to get a Z-bracelet and can buy Z-crystals at gen 8 facility with BPs" in the game.

Which really makes you wonder why bother putting a strong gamechanging mechanic when you're going to both not have it replicate anymore as well as be forced to cut it off the first year of VGC.

I also never really understood the whole VGC "the Pokemon must be bred/caught in this gen" clause. Aside from a extremely limited amount of things (like HA genies or specific TMs that disappeared) it just makes the whole chore of having to AGAIN breed everything every 2 years, even Pokes that you already spent ages breeding (if not right up genned since you gave up)
 
I also never really understood the whole VGC "the Pokemon must be bred/caught in this gen" clause. Aside from a extremely limited amount of things (like HA genies or specific TMs that disappeared) it just makes the whole chore of having to AGAIN breed everything every 2 years, even Pokes that you already spent ages breeding (if not right up genned since you gave up)
If they're insisting on keeping the breeding and collecting aspect of teambuilding for VGC in the future, like they have with gens 6 and 7, I'm fine with them forcing people to re-breed and collect stuff in the current gen. Because then it makes it easier to close the gap between new players who want to give it a shot and older players who sit on a pile of Pokemon from the last gen. I guess there's also the argument that it prevents people from having an advantage by bringing Pokemon with past gen only tutor moves that are nigh essential, thus requiring you to buy a completely different game to compete, but that part of the issue could be solved by them just being better with tutors and TMs for the first game in a generation and not letting useful TMs and Tutors (like Power-up-Punch, Hone Claws and especially Soft-Boiled) be forgotten.
 
If they're insisting on keeping the breeding and collecting aspect of teambuilding for VGC in the future, like they have with gens 6 and 7, I'm fine with them forcing people to re-breed and collect stuff in the current gen. Because then it makes it easier to close the gap between new players who want to give it a shot and older players who sit on a pile of Pokemon from the last gen. I guess there's also the argument that it prevents people from having an advantage by bringing Pokemon with past gen only tutor moves that are nigh essential, thus requiring you to buy a completely different game to compete, but that part of the issue could be solved by them just being better with tutors and TMs for the first game in a generation and not letting useful TMs and Tutors (like Power-up-Punch, Hone Claws and especially Soft-Boiled) be forgotten.
My issue is that the only "real" advantage people would have is a handful of HA legendaries (namely, dogs birds genies regis), several of which uncompetitive, which they even had a perfect chance of distributing to everyone as gen 7 natives with the Legendary event.

As for TMs, I never understood why the removal of some of them. I loved Hone Claws (but that's cause i'm a facility player), I don't think PuP was so gamebreaking to deserve losing TM status, and there was really no reason to not keep them and others as Tutors if the reason was to "free up TM slots", like they added Elemental Punches some gens ago, or Defog this gen.

(Side note, the Defog tutor addition was surprising, considering entry Hazard are really only popular in Smogon formats, and that's really the only place where this was relevant)
 
Speaking of unnecessary features, I absolutely despise Z Moves. Maybe I'd hate them a bit less if they didn't have ridiculous dance moves to trigger and atrocious English names.
I always have a divided opinion on Z-moves, because on one side they make competitive battles relatively faster + discourage attempts at setupping / stalling because there's always the threat of being oneshot by a unexpected Z-move.

On the other hand there's the backfiring of the same thing: it means that all your effort for getting in a strong position can get nullified by a Z-move or flat out lose a match turn 1 by one of your Pokemon getting deleted when they shouldnt.

I don't know. I'll just say I'm neutral toward them (but the Fairy Z-move dance, expecially on female player, is best dance ever and I'll fight to death over it)
 
Speaking of unnecessary features, I absolutely despise Z Moves.

I despise them in singles, where protect isnt used as much as in a doubles setting.
Whichever the target it is, most of the times they guarantee to fire an obscene amount of damage off.
I feel like expecially when teambuilding it's really hard to actually check stuff, because if the mon you want to be checked wields a random z crystal it can severely dent your check on the switch (if not OHKO you outright), hampering it in checking the threat is supposed to for the course of the game. This is expecially true if the aformentioned check has no recovery.
The threat of a random Z Move is really threatening and imho adds another randomic element that I really didn't want in Pokémon (singles).
 
I also never really understood the whole VGC "the Pokemon must be bred/caught in this gen" clause. Aside from a extremely limited amount of things (like HA genies or specific TMs that disappeared) it just makes the whole chore of having to AGAIN breed everything every 2 years, even Pokes that you already spent ages breeding (if not right up genned since you gave up)

I think it's to reduce reliance on extremely obscure-to-obtain moves (e.g. the event-exclusive ones) and to fix certain balance mistakes (though I'm not entirely sure about the last one; Power-Up Punch Mega Kangaskhan comes to my mind).
 
I think it's to reduce reliance on extremely obscure-to-obtain moves (e.g. the event-exclusive ones) and to fix certain balance mistakes (though I'm not entirely sure about the last one; Power-Up Punch Mega Kangaskhan comes to my mind).
I know the reasoning, but I don't think those are spread enough to justify this.

Yes, PuP Kangaskhan is one but it's really the only one (which could have just been kept as TM / Tutor). HA Zapdos and Lando-I are the only other two unavailable HAs I can think could make a (still relatively minor) impact in VGC scenario, I don't see this as sufficent enough reasoning to shut previous gen mons out other than wanting players to re-breed or re-catch the mons.

(Also, they made Multiscale Lugia available via event, and it's usable in VGC and significantly better than Pressure Lugia which counters this point of "event mons stay out of VGC")
 
here's something really unpopular:

i think that 10% secondary effects (flamethrower burn, focus blast spdef drop, ice beam freeze) should just be removed from the game altogether.

in-game there's certainly no issue with them, because you have access to status removing items, plus users of these moves are generally pretty rare. when you use them, you get this extra benefit at times which can be neat.

my problem with them in the competitive scene is that the chance of their activation is super low, so planning for them results in actively suboptimal play. the counterexamples of this are moves like lava plume and discharge, which are actively used to get the secondary effect, so planning for secondary effects is feasible.

if you switch your haxorus into scald and it gets burned, that's kind of on you, because scald has a respectable 30% burn chance and it's your fault for not acknowledging that. but if you switch your haxorus into heat wave and it gets burned, that's 100% on the game. it doesn't help that your mons are constantly in danger of getting randomly frozen unless you're that one guy who brought an ice type to a competitive battle.

you might say that removing secondary effects would remove lots of flavor from the game, like how it implies removing the freezing effect altogether. but honestly...i could get through a playthrough without paralyzing mons with thunderbolt. it's not that big of a deal. and as for the freeze status, that's just horribly balanced in general and should be fixed lol

thanks for coming to my ted talk
 
I actually don't have a problem with Pokemon Let's Go. Will I buy it? Honestly, probably not. But it's a spinoff game, and there have always been easy spin off Pokemon games (Ranger, Pinball, Picross etc.) And besides, we're getting the full next gen game next year, and it is nice to see the Pokemon in full 3D.
 
here's something really unpopular:

i think that 10% secondary effects (flamethrower burn, focus blast spdef drop, ice beam freeze) should just be removed from the game altogether.

in-game there's certainly no issue with them, because you have access to status removing items, plus users of these moves are generally pretty rare. when you use them, you get this extra benefit at times which can be neat.

my problem with them in the competitive scene is that the chance of their activation is super low, so planning for them results in actively suboptimal play. the counterexamples of this are moves like lava plume and discharge, which are actively used to get the secondary effect, so planning for secondary effects is feasible.

if you switch your haxorus into scald and it gets burned, that's kind of on you, because scald has a respectable 30% burn chance and it's your fault for not acknowledging that. but if you switch your haxorus into heat wave and it gets burned, that's 100% on the game. it doesn't help that your mons are constantly in danger of getting randomly frozen unless you're that one guy who brought an ice type to a competitive battle.

you might say that removing secondary effects would remove lots of flavor from the game, like how it implies removing the freezing effect altogether. but honestly...i could get through a playthrough without paralyzing mons with thunderbolt. it's not that big of a deal. and as for the freeze status, that's just horribly balanced in general and should be fixed lol

thanks for coming to my ted talk
While this may not sound particularly healthy for a competitive game, I do like the fact that these 10% effects can give you a desperation factor in situations where it seems like you're guaranteed to lose. There have been times where I've deliberately used Ice Beam purely for the Freeze chance. Sure it may not have been part of the plan from the start, but the freeze chance did give me a slight chance of winning, where using a more damage effective move would be less likely to help me win, since even a crit wouldn't have been enough.

Besides, if they removed the 10% chance effects, where would they stop? people would obviously later complain about 95% accuracy moves, 20% chance effects and crits, then 90% accuracy moves and 30% chance effects etc.

Granted, I'm not exactly the prime example of a competitive player. I only really have decent experience in the Randbats format. But personally, I think the 10% chance effects are nice since they don't only add flavor, they add an element of uncertianty to even what may seem as the safest possible move, which means you shouldn't take any random move lightly, just because the damage is low. And besides, even if you get hit with one of the rare effects, it's not like the game is over immediately unless it's like the last few turns. You'd be put in a potentially far worse position, sure, but that doesn't mean the fight is over.
 
if you switch your haxorus into scald and it gets burned, that's kind of on you, because scald has a respectable 30% burn chance and it's your fault for not acknowledging that. but if you switch your haxorus into heat wave and it gets burned, that's 100% on the game.

Well no, it's 90% on the game... and 10% on you. <__<

But yeah, echoing what has been said above, this kind of moves can potentially turn the tables, which seems to tie in with a leitmotiv Pokémon (as a whole, games an anime alike) love: fight 'til the end.
You may be losing, but the slightest amount of hax can bring you back into the game. While that's far from ideal in a competitive setting, it makes you want to go for the gold even with your back against the wall, which is something that every storyline ever in Pokémon likes to emphasize.
 
Well no, it's 90% on the game... and 10% on you. <__<

But yeah, echoing what has been said above, this kind of moves can potentially turn the tables, which seems to tie in with a leitmotiv Pokémon (as a whole, games an anime alike) love: fight 'til the end.
You may be losing, but the slightest amount of hax can bring you back into the game. While that's far from ideal in a competitive setting, it makes you want to go for the gold even with your back against the wall, which is something that every storyline ever in Pokémon likes to emphasize.
flinch hax.jpg


I think you deserve to be memed on here :D
 
here's something really unpopular:

i think that 10% secondary effects (flamethrower burn, focus blast spdef drop, ice beam freeze) should just be removed from the game altogether.

in-game there's certainly no issue with them, because you have access to status removing items, plus users of these moves are generally pretty rare. when you use them, you get this extra benefit at times which can be neat.

my problem with them in the competitive scene is that the chance of their activation is super low, so planning for them results in actively suboptimal play. the counterexamples of this are moves like lava plume and discharge, which are actively used to get the secondary effect, so planning for secondary effects is feasible.

if you switch your haxorus into scald and it gets burned, that's kind of on you, because scald has a respectable 30% burn chance and it's your fault for not acknowledging that. but if you switch your haxorus into heat wave and it gets burned, that's 100% on the game. it doesn't help that your mons are constantly in danger of getting randomly frozen unless you're that one guy who brought an ice type to a competitive battle.

you might say that removing secondary effects would remove lots of flavor from the game, like how it implies removing the freezing effect altogether. but honestly...i could get through a playthrough without paralyzing mons with thunderbolt. it's not that big of a deal. and as for the freeze status, that's just horribly balanced in general and should be fixed lol

thanks for coming to my ted talk
It would suck for Sheer Force users since they can exchange that effect they were unlikely to get off anyway for more power.

But really, you're not really supposed to plan for these effects going off. They're more of a nice cherry on top if, say, that Flamethrower manages to burn something on the switch. If the intention is to inflict status, you'd more likely plan to have something with a status move to inflict it. (or a 30% chance move if you fear Magic Coat/Magic Bounce)
 
But that’s the problem, you don’t plan for it. You switch your Dragonite out of Greninja and bring in MegaVenu, but it freezes on the switch and now what do you do to stop Gren for the rest of the match?
 
But that’s the problem, you don’t plan for it. You switch your Dragonite out of Greninja and bring in MegaVenu, but it freezes on the switch and now what do you do to stop Gren for the rest of the match?

If you want a game with no rng factor play chess
 
Back
Top