Unpopular opinions

[PokePoindexter]

You want proof that Game Freak doesn't give a shit about buffing underwhelming mons using Mega Evolution? They gave Mewtwo - who, btw, is a manmade Pokemon created over a thousand years after Mega Evolution was first discovered - two Mega Stones. Both of which also predate their potential recipient by at least a millennium. Just let that sink in.

On a more serious note: I guess while we're talking about Mega Evolution, I'll say this: Mega Evolution should stay in gens 6/7.

First off, I think keeping it there helps X/Y maintain what little reason there may be to replay them, and adding them to SwSh or anything released after - especially during the main adventure - would essentially render X/Y completely obsolete (if ORAS don't already, of course).

Secondly, don't get me started on what kind of nightmare online battling would be if things like Mega Mawile and Mega Salamence could both Mega and Dynamax simultaneously.

Third, I know enough about this franchise's fanbase to say with a modicum of confidence that there's just no way to bring Mega Evolution back in a way that satisfies enough of them. If GF just brings back the same Megas as before, they'll complain about the lack of new ones. If they do introduce new ones, they'll complain about how one certain Pokemon or another didn't get one. If such a mon does get one, they'll complain about how its design ruins it, or how it didn't get buffed enough, or whatever else. I can't see a winning formula for reintroducing Megas that doesn't piss off a sizeable chunk of the fanbase, so I think it's best to just avoid activating the shitstorm altogether.

Lastly, I don't think the most common argument I hear in favor of bringing it back - that being its ability to buff underwhelming mons - holds much weight, all things considered. There are other ways to do that without giving such a thing a Mega (e.g. the various toys Pelipper got in Gen 7). Plus, looking at the distribution of Megas we currently have, I don't find most of the recipients to be all that underwhelming in the first place (not being a top-tier threat in OU doesn't necessarily count as "underwhelming" to me), and frankly, I'd bet more money on Game Freak creating 3 more Mega Mewtwos than I would on them creating a single Mega Ledian or Chimecho.

Considering all of that, I think it's better for all parties involved to just leave Mega Evolution in the past. And before you ask, yes, I also think Z-Moves and Dynamax should stay in gens 7 and 8 respectively.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

You want proof that Game Freak doesn't give a shit about buffing underwhelming mons using Mega Evolution? They gave Mewtwo - who, btw, is a manmade Pokemon created over a thousand years after Mega Evolution was first discovered - two Mega Stones. Both of which also predate their potential recipient by at least a millennium. Just let that sink in.

[...]

Lastly, I don't think the most common argument I hear in favor of bringing it back - that being its ability to buff underwhelming mons - holds much weight, all things considered. There are other ways to do that without giving such a thing a Mega (e.g. the various toys Pelipper got in Gen 7). Plus, looking at the distribution of Megas we currently have, I don't find most of the recipients to be all that underwhelming in the first place (not being a top-tier threat in OU doesn't necessarily count as "underwhelming" to me), and frankly, I'd bet more money on Game Freak creating 3 more Mega Mewtwos than I would on them creating a single Mega Ledian or Chimecho.

The Mewtwo detail is an interesting plothole. I guess it's possible that Mewtwo's weird DNA allowed it to react with two existing mega stones that previously had no users? Or maybe the scientists that made it also made two artificial mega stones? I dunno if either of those make sense; I haven't played XY, so I'm not super familiar with the lore of mega evolution beyond "they were made by the ultimate weapon and/or some bigass meteor"

It's true that there are non-mega ways to buff a Pokemon. These buffs tend to be more future-proofed, so in that way they're preferable, but Smogon's also stuck with a shitload of things learning Close Combat and Nasty Plot unless it decides to ban move transfers, so in that way it's not preferable, even if that isn't actually a concern in the metas Game Freak actually cares about. However, I'd like to dispel the idea that megas helped already-strong Pokemon more than they helped weak Pokemon. I did the math a while back and only 37% of mega Pokemon were already good before they got the mega. Additionally, ~70% of megas for bad Pokemon were significantly better than their base form, while a mere 12% (only two fo them!) megas for already-good Pokemon were vast improvements.

 

[Ironmage]

I want to address two things.

While I do agree that some of the Megas like Houndoom, Altaria, and Banette could have ( and probably would be better off ) as cross-gens, I want to address two issues:

1. Ace Pokemon getting Megas. Yes, Megas also exist to promote merchandise, which is the reason why Charizard and Mewtwo got two, and Pokemon like Garchomp and Gengar got one. Remember, Pokemon is a merchandise driven franchise, so people who did not play Pokemon for long time will se their favorite Pokemon getting Megas and want to play the game. At least Megas were not soley Gen 1 unlike Alola Forms and Gigantamax.

2. The biggest issue I have is the subjective nature of how a Pokemon's stats correlate to its role. If that was the case, Articuno would be in the same tier as Zapdos, or Typhlosion as Charizard. People say Salamence should not get a Mega Evolution due to being a Psuedo-Legendary, but Goodra is also a Psuedo-Legendary and its in NU. Metagross is also another case of a Pokemon who people argue should not have gotten a Mega, but its in RU as of now. And that’s only looking a Smogon tiers. Dragonite gets significantly less usage than Goodra in VGC, does Dragonite deserve a Mega over Goodra in that case?

And that goes back to another topic I want to discuss: Difficulty. Before I go into this, I want to bring up other observations. I’ve been hanging on Fire Emblem Forums recently, and I have often noticed a huge series of complaints against Fire Emblem: Three Houses, with some people saying it’s the worst series; here are some of the complaints: “ The Monastery is a chore “, “ The Minigames are pointless “, “ Maps are too simple “, and the “ difficulty is too easy “. Don’t those complaints sound familiar? Anyway, I think it’s a shame that people feel that way about the monastery and minigames, because I really do believe that they really fit in the world of Three Houses very well and helps brings out it themes; in other words, Three Houses is a game that rewards you for taking the time to learn about your peers and participating in activities with them. People who just wanna go from battle to battle with little to no break are not going to enjoy the game because that’s not how it was supposed to be played.

But enough about that. I want to talk about the Map Design particular. Fire Emblem has a rough history especially in the west. The first five games were never localized in the west, and when they did start localizing them, they did not sell well. A big factor is how difficult the older games were. Not only did they feature huge maps with multiple objectives as well as being a huge time sink, Fire Emblem was famous for permadeath, or when Charcters die, they are permanently removed from the game. This made the games notoriously difficult, which is probably why when they started localizing the games in the west, they struggled to be super popular: The learning curve being too difficult really made it hard for newcomers to be invested. There wasn’t any option to turn off permadeath until New Mystery of the Emblem, which was the 11th game in the series. Radiant Dawn was widely criticized for being too difficult by western critics, and difficulty settings were mistranslated in English: Hard is Lunatic, Normal is Hard. Ever since Awakening, which saved the franchise form cancellation, the maps become a lot simpler in design with more simple objectives like “Defeat the Boss” instead of “Seize”. The developers noted the complaints and tried to appease both veteran players and casual players with Fates, with the Conquest Campaign being designed to be a challenge with complex map objectives and limited resources, while Birthright features simple maps and allowed grinding making it ideal for beginners. Despite that, they went back to simpler maps and objectives in Three Houses. Why? Simply put, most people or Casual players don’t like, or don’t have the patience to handle super complex maps the older titles. Fire Emblem was almost canceled, and they don’t want that to ever happen again. That’s why the newer games have been designed with a casual approach in mind, they want someone who started with Three Houses to stick until the end of the game- they do not want them to quit just because the game was too difficult.

Newcomers will likely have some difficulties with Three Houses. I know that for a fact because I am a veteran and gave a copy of Three Houses to my brother, and he had some pretty hard times in the game. Even I had found Three Houses difficult at some points, and I am a veteran player.

So what does this have to do with Pokémon? Well, all the logic I’ve used in the paragraphs above applies here. Just because a small minority of people find the game easy, doesn’t mean others will. For someone playing XY as a veteran might find it easy and find Megas overkill, but for a newcomer Megas might just be what makes the game passable after being too difficult. I’ve played XY several times, and in one particular run I actually struggled against Olympia because her Meowstic set up too many Calm Minds and I did not have a dark type. I actually lost, and yes, as a veteran player, I lost in XY. How tragic!

In conclusion, when looking at design choices like difficulty, it’s more important to consider casual or one time players, people who only play game once. Those are the people who vastly outnumber those who do Ironman runs as well as those who play the same games multiple times. While I can echo some people express disappointment that Pokémon games have become streamlined recently, I can understand why they do it from a business perspective and the fact that most hardcore players who do things like nuzlockes are in a minority and do not weigh much in comparison to the casual/newcomers.

Something that stuck out to me reading this is that it did not consider my largest issue with three houses. Specifically, that it is a step back in the ability to produce interesting and synergistic skill builds, which is where I got most of my time and enjoyment from the previous entries. To be honest, I haven't played 3H all the way through because I don't feel like the game respects my playstyle enough to make it enjoyable. If we're going to parallel that to pokemon, we're probably back to talking about the Natdex mess.

Also going to disagree with your main point. I don't owe the masses enough to feel like their preferences are more valid than my own, and I don't consider "does this make business sense" to be an indication of whether a game is good. So to me, this is completely irrelevant to whether I consider newer pokemon games or 3H to be well-designed.

 

[ScraftyIsTheBest]

Making video games more accessible is in and of itself an inherently good idea from a business point of view. If you can appeal to more audiences, that works even better for sales.

It seems to me that the prevailing concern here is not in regards to the idea of making the games more accessible, but rather the execution of it in practice. Yes, it seems the concern both in regards to newer Pokemon games and other franchises like with FE and Three Houses (well really, Awakening onwards) is that they focus on making the games more accessible to newcomers and casuals while not focusing on making the games more conducive to veteran players. Arguably, this is an execution problem, not one with the idea in and of itself. Older Fire Emblem games, for instance, had terrible accessibility to all but very hardcore Tactical RPG players and were difficult, until FE Awakening, Fates, 3H, and vice versa added a casual mode and other player friendly conveniences for newer players to get into the games more easily. That's not an inherently bad concept: what likely is the concern is how it's executed in practice making the games seemingly less fun for more experienced/hardcore players.

Arguably, older Pokemon games weren't actually difficult by any means. They were just more tedious and grind demanding because of poorly thought out level curves and lack of EXP All mechanic, combined with the shit/limited movepool options available to the player. The games from Gen 5 onwards aren't inherently less easy: in a vacuum the difficulty is actually pretty similar to old gens. It's just that the player now has more options at their disposal: infinite use TMs, everything has a better movepool, more ways to train and level your mons more quickly, Entralink Powers/O-Powers/Whatever, and vice versa. In other words, the player is more powerful. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since the AI in old gens wasn't that good and only made the older games seem more difficult because of bad game design, but they haven't powered up the AI accordingly to match the capable level of power players can reach in more recent games. A truly difficult Pokemon game would involve smart AI, strategic use of items, and well thought out movesets and teams. This is something you mainly see in multiplayer nowadays in the VGC and Battle Spot: given recent trends, it's clear they have focused more on that aspect of the games (Gen 6 frankly had some of the best multiplayer features ever) and back then mostly in the Battle Frontier or PWT. A simple way to include this would be to include difficulty modes that change how inherently difficult the game is, but I am unsure Game Freak cares about that unfortunately.

 

[Worldie]

A simple way to include this would be to include difficulty modes that change how inherently difficult the game is, but I am unsure Game Freak cares about that unfortunately.

It's not much a problem of "caring" rather a problem of "is it worth it".

It boils down to same reason Battle Facilities were mainly cut or reduced to a very simplified version this generation.
Creating a harder mode requires development time, resources, and AI development, from a studio that's already struggling to meet release deadlines in first place.
What exactly is the gain to invest said resources when they aren't going to provide a sales benefit? The (atrociously large) majority of people who buy pokemon games buy them because they are Pokemon. They don't buy them for the challenge, they either buy them for the fun, for the creatures, or to play VGC in which case the easier the plot is the better.
In same fashion of battle facilities, what people who aren't already buying the game would buy it "if it was harder"?

The answer is: very few, if even.

I ask that to also people who didnt buy SwSh cause bored of how easy the game is, would you have bought Sword and Shield and its DLCs if it had a "challenge mode", expecially knowing that to implement it they would have to cut or rush a different feature on a game that's already suffering from rushed features? Be honest.

Thus, there's no reason to develop the feature.

That is, unfortunately, how business works.

 

[TMan87]

I urge you all to keep in mind that the grasp you have on the games right now isn't exactly the grasp your 8 years old self had on the game.
What if previous games weren't exactly more difficult, but you perceived it as more difficult because, to put it plainly, you didn't really know what you were doing?
Like, what will give you the easier time in-game, a Charizard with Swords Dance and perfect coverage on the 3 remaining attacks, or a Charizard with 4 Fire moves "because it looks cool"?

 

[Siggu]

It's not much a problem of "caring" rather a problem of "is it worth it".

It boils down to same reason Battle Facilities were mainly cut or reduced to a very simplified version this generation.
Creating a harder mode requires development time, resources, and AI development, from a studio that's already struggling to meet release deadlines in first place.
What exactly is the gain to invest said resources when they aren't going to provide a sales benefit? The (atrociously large) majority of people who buy pokemon games buy them because they are Pokemon. They don't buy them for the challenge, they either buy them for the fun, for the creatures, or to play VGC in which case the easier the plot is the better.
In same fashion of battle facilities, what people who aren't already buying the game would buy it "if it was harder"?

The answer is: very few, if even.

I ask that to also people who didnt buy SwSh cause bored of how easy the game is, would you have bought Sword and Shield and its DLCs if it had a "challenge mode", expecially knowing that to implement it they would have to cut or rush a different feature on a game that's already suffering from rushed features? Be honest.

Thus, there's no reason to develop the feature.

That is, unfortunately, how business works.

And as a reminder: Gen V is the one with the lowest sales of all generations (well, technically it's Gen VIII but there's the DP remakes soon so...). Sure, we can excuse that to when it was released, and that BW has the lowest sales of any opening game pair of a generation. Even the heavily criticized USUM sold (barely) more than the acclaimed BW2 (in fact, only Platinum, Emerald, and Crystal sold less than BW2 - oh well, look at that, three of the bottom four have extensive battle facilities...).

I don't think it's a coincidence that there was a major shift in how to handle things in XY. The surprisingly (comparatively) low sales of Gen V, games that had a lot of ambition behind, have a lot to do with that, I think.

 

[Worldie]

I urge you all to keep in mind that the grasp you have on the games right now isn't exactly the grasp your 8 years old self had on the game.
What if previous games weren't exactly more difficult, but you perceived it as more difficult because, to put it plainly, you didn't really know what you were doing?
Like, what will give you the easier time in-game, a Charizard with Swords Dance and perfect coverage on the 3 remaining attacks, or a Charizard with 4 Fire moves "because it looks cool"?

Excuse me sir, I have to urge you to get your facts and objective truths out of this discussion, how dare you imply that 14 year old me with my 3 dragonite, each one having different elements and 0 stabs, was not optimal?

 

[The Mind Electric]

I urge you all to keep in mind that the grasp you have on the games right now isn't exactly the grasp your 8 years old self had on the game.
What if previous games weren't exactly more difficult, but you perceived it as more difficult because, to put it plainly, you didn't really know what you were doing?
Like, what will give you the easier time in-game, a Charizard with Swords Dance and perfect coverage on the 3 remaining attacks, or a Charizard with 4 Fire moves "because it looks cool"?

When I was a kid playing the DS Pokémon games, Pokémon was extremely easy, because I would just roll everything with my absurdly overleveled starter. Now that I'm older, I make the games more challenging for myself by adding certain restrictions (no excessive grinding unless I'm trying to catch up with the level curve, no healing items in battle, set mode). With these restrictions, X is by far the easiest Pokémon game I've played so far, and it's not really a contest. I played on set mode, I never once used healing items in battle (I would sometimes cheat and use a few in the DS games to get over a hurdle), and I only ever did level grinding when I was training up new catches. Even with all of this, the game was a complete stomp after the second gym.

After B2/W2, there was a very clear effort by GF to make Pokémon even easier than it already is for people who don't play with restrictions, and all you need to do to see this is examine gen 6's experience mechanics. They buffed switch training by making all the Pokémon who participate in a battle get all of the experience, you get experience for catching Pokémon, and the EXP Share not only exists but is turned on by default. In addition to these new mechanics to streamline the process of gaining levels, important trainers often have less Pokémon than in previous gens, and worse Pokémon at that (some of them don't even have four moves!). The list of restrictions you need to make these games hard is much longer than it is for the games before the shift in design philosophy. It can be argued that this isn't a bad thing, and I don't much care either way because X was enjoyable enough for me to not regret spending time on it even though it was easy, but this isn't just people having a bad idea of how Pokémon's difficulty has changed over time because of childhood memories. The games got easier.

 

[Yung Dramps]

I don't think it's a coincidence that there was a major shift in how to handle things in XY. The surprisingly (comparatively) low sales of Gen V, games that had a lot of ambition behind, have a lot to do with that, I think.

And this segues into another take I have and have been wanting to share for a while: I think people massively overhype how much XY deviated from the Gen 5 games and in general severely downplay the impact they had on the series going forward.

As much as it'll upset some people here to say, BW is the beginning of the modern era. Other than the only new Pokemon dex, which I doubt was ever intended to be anything beyond BW1's own little funky experiment, what else did they exactly roll back in the past 3 games? All the QoL stuff like perma-TMs and phasing out HMs has been kept around. Increased story focus has never waned either (XY was a major outlier in hindsight, and while there are very obvious issues with SWSH's writing they clearly did try at some level to make memorable characters and plots for them unlike the former 3d game). Even some more unsavory trends like excessive shiny-locking started here.

That's to say nothing of the idea that Nintendo or Game Freak internally deemed Gen 5 a relative failure, which is a bold-faced lie that only serves to propagate a bogus victim complex narrative that those heathen genwunners caused the world to reject the majesty of Black and White and that's why the franchise is now bad apparently. BW were actually the fastest-selling DS Pokemon games in multiple territories, and critically it was famously the first ever Pokemon game and only the 15th game ever to receive a perfect 40/40 score from Famitsu, Japan's biggest gaming publication. This is all for a game that came out in the twilight years of the DS, the 3DS just on the horizon for BW1 and already out by the time of BW2's launch.

 

[ScraftyIsTheBest]

XY was a major outlier in hindsight, and while there are very obvious issues with SWSH's writing they clearly did try at some level to make memorable characters and plots for them unlike the former 3d game).

X and Y weren't outliers. XY also had a heavy focus on story and characters, it just had messy execution and it showed.

At its core it was still focused on having a story to tell throughout the journey, whether it was memorable or likable or not is in the eyes of the beholder.

 

[benjamin4321]

Making video games more accessible is in and of itself an inherently good idea from a business point of view. If you can appeal to more audiences, that works even better for sales.

It seems to me that the prevailing concern here is not in regards to the idea of making the games more accessible, but rather the execution of it in practice. Yes, it seems the concern both in regards to newer Pokemon games and other franchises like with FE and Three Houses (well really, Awakening onwards) is that they focus on making the games more accessible to newcomers and casuals while not focusing on making the games more conducive to veteran players. Arguably, this is an execution problem, not one with the idea in and of itself. Older Fire Emblem games, for instance, had terrible accessibility to all but very hardcore Tactical RPG players and were difficult, until FE Awakening, Fates, 3H, and vice versa added a casual mode and other player friendly conveniences for newer players to get into the games more easily. That's not an inherently bad concept: what likely is the concern is how it's executed in practice making the games seemingly less fun for more experienced/hardcore players.

Arguably, older Pokemon games weren't actually difficult by any means. They were just more tedious and grind demanding because of poorly thought out level curves and lack of EXP All mechanic, combined with the shit/limited movepool options available to the player. The games from Gen 5 onwards aren't inherently less easy: in a vacuum the difficulty is actually pretty similar to old gens. It's just that the player now has more options at their disposal: infinite use TMs, everything has a better movepool, more ways to train and level your mons more quickly, Entralink Powers/O-Powers/Whatever, and vice versa. In other words, the player is more powerful. That's not necessarily a bad thing, since the AI in old gens wasn't that good and only made the older games seem more difficult because of bad game design, but they haven't powered up the AI accordingly to match the capable level of power players can reach in more recent games. A truly difficult Pokemon game would involve smart AI, strategic use of items, and well thought out movesets and teams. This is something you mainly see in multiplayer nowadays in the VGC and Battle Spot: given recent trends, it's clear they have focused more on that aspect of the games (Gen 6 frankly had some of the best multiplayer features ever) and back then mostly in the Battle Frontier or PWT. A simple way to include this would be to include difficulty modes that change how inherently difficult the game is, but I am unsure Game Freak cares about that unfortunately.

Game Freak 100% doesn't care about difficulty levels because they are so easy to implement but we still don't have them. When I play rom hacks I have started using a randomizer to edit base stats/ move power to use certain pokemon in certain ways; even though dragonite and gyarados will always be top tier picks because of dragon dance I switch their attack with their special attack because watching the anime as a kid and Lance's movesets in G/S and HG/SS make me picture them as special attackers. They both have incredible special coverage which makes the special sets fun and for even more fun I usually buff twister to 90 base power with the same flinch chance and change the move distribution and the level learned. The randomizer also allows you to change trainer pokemon really easily (just as intuitive and as fast as the showdown teambuilder). I bet anything it would take 2 employees a workday or less to hammer out an easy and hard mode which makes the lack of difficulty settings even more infuriating.

My frustration boiled over with the sword and shield base game which was the worst experience I have ever had with pokemon: first, the exploration aspect of pokemon has been dying since gen 6 and sword and shield didn't even have a single optional route (not to mention an aggressively mediocre wild area); second, I felt I could legitimately close my eyes and spam A and never be in danger of losing a single battle. It made for a crazy empty experience and I straight up loathe the base game because of it. Then I played a difficulty hack and I had a genuinely great time. The increase in difficulty really made the mobile pc shine and I actually had a reason to use a 10 pokemon roster beyond forcing myself to. The crazy thing is that Game Freak has it easy since the vast majority of fans judge pokemon by a different set of standards than other games ( don't have to worry about pesky things like pushing technological boundaries or an engaging story) but they still wont give us something as standard as difficulty settings. VGC has been a thing for a little more than a decade and they literally just put long overdue QOL updates in the most recent game to give some people easier access to competitive play which means they know there is an audience that would appreciate a hard mode, but they still wont do it. At this point I am just going to wait until a good rom hack comes out before I buy any of the games, its straight up embarrassing that they cant deliver on already lowered expectations.

 

[DrumstickGaming]

5th Generation somewhat making the games easier wasn't a bad thing. I will be the first to admit the difficulty of BW1 is schizophrenic as all get out (did they honestly expect you to lose to Skyla or Brycen?), but this gen also marked a dramatic spike in Pokemon usability. Ever since then more often that not even the "archtype" mons get something to make them stand out. When we tiered BW1 in-game mons, most mons landed in C or above, a testament that while not exactly original, Pokemon in general were a lot easier to use. While it wasn't C, even stuff like Maractus can still do things with 106 Special Attack Petal Dance.

The problem comes in when you give the player too much leeway. SWSH literally forces EXP Share on. That's not good design, it's railroading the player to victory. Not to mention the OP AS HECK stone evolutions, like who thought an Arcanine at like level 12 with Flamethrower via relearner is okay? It's such a shame too because SM and especially USUM made strides to make fairly difficult adventures IN SPITE OF the gradually decreasing difficulty from the last couple games. I want to like things in SWSH, it's just the base game put such a bad taste in my mouth I didn't bother with the expansion pass in spite of the better reception: why do competitive on cartridge metagames dominated by a almost deliberately OP mechanic in Dynamax (it was literally suspected in even random battles, like, come on).

An actual unpopular opinion I have: the forced monkey tutorial for the first gym in BW1 was a good idea. Many people dislike this and I understand why, but in reality, borderline character select forcing / strongly recommended options even existed way back in Generation 1: only Grass and Water types can really stomach Misty and Starmie's BubbleBeam. Sure, you can overlevel by going to Vermillion, but I'd imagine most people would want their shiny new badge first if they didn't know going to Bill meant that path opened up and you could sequence break. Granted, the monkey is the ONLY option, so it's not 1:1 but with Cheren showing up frequently it's nice to get the player equipped for their starter and I don't mind a soft-reboot teaching me the basics rather than HEY DO YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE POKE FINDER LET'S FIRE UP A TUTORIAL YES / YES? It's not the best execution sure, but many people forget the monkeys are solid Pokemon, yes, even Simisear once it gets Flame Burst.

Another thing 5th gen did was a dramatic spike in "disc one nukes." You honestly have to try to not be overpowered with how many great options they give you. Literally anything from Route 4 is amazing, as are Sawk and Throh and Archen, etc. The earlygame will remain infamous, sure, but I think people forget Roggenrola and even stuff like Audino are actually quite competent - people don't want to use them because of the earlygame stigma. BW1 also gives you Work Up, the best first gym TM ever made (I don't like Stealth Rock). Work Up is a fantastic way of teaching you how to sweep.

Yeah this could have gone in "little things you like" but whatever.

 

[Siggu]

Given it's an anti-grinding mechanic, I couldn't be bothered any less about mandatory EXP Share. Whatever streamlines the experience will be warmly welcomed by me.

Does it lower difficulty? Yes... but it's the same game that has Mobile PC, and I was constantly swapping Pokémon so I was actually underleveled in many points.

I know it's a 'me' thing, but it didn't really affect me. Same with the stones... which I completely ignored as none of the Pokémon I wanted used them to evolve.

 

[benjamin4321]

Given it's an anti-grinding mechanic, I couldn't be bothered any less about mandatory EXP Share. Whatever streamlines the experience will be warmly welcomed by me.

Does it lower difficulty? Yes... but it's the same game that has Mobile PC, and I was constantly swapping Pokémon so I was actually underleveled in many points.

I know it's a 'me' thing, but it didn't really affect me. Same with the stones... which I completely ignored as none of the Pokémon I wanted used them to evolve.

Its the fact that it was a deliberate move to remove player choice. Lets imagine a scenario with someone who only likes/wants to play with 6 of the new pokemon, with forced exp share they will have to be over-leveled unless they use pokemon they do not like or skip a lot of trainer battles. With the old exp share everyone, that guy and you, will get what you want. They went out of their way to do something which could only have a negative effect.

 

[Bakugames]

I actually think a good difficulty game necessitates exp share as a basis as to not turn into a grind fest or complete guessing of the developers what the fuck is your team doing level-wise to adjust. I think they should have kept exp share optional but make it playing without it pretty much an underleveled unfun grinding nightmare for a hard mode. I think it would be hilarious

 

[Worldie]

I actually think a good difficulty game necessitates exp share as a basis as to not turn into a grind fest or complete guessing of the developers what the fuck is your team doing level-wise to adjust. I think they should have kept exp share optional but make it playing without it pretty much an underleveled unfun grinding nightmare for a hard mode. I think it would be hilarious

I agree, I also think shared exp always on is a good thing. The ""problem"" was that the game wasnt actually balanced around it (USUM did this better, without exp share on you'd fall behind once you reach Poni Island if you havent been purposely grinding) but heh, I don't think you can make pokemon games hard in first place.
Turn based games are never hard, because all of them can be exploited or bruteforced in some way due to the lack of urgency / reactions required during the combat, it's impossible to make them challenging for a veteran player.

 

[benjamin4321]

I agree, I also think shared exp always on is a good thing. The ""problem"" was that the game wasnt actually balanced around it (USUM did this better, without exp share on you'd fall behind once you reach Poni Island if you havent been purposely grinding) but heh, I don't think you can make pokemon games hard in first place.
Turn based games are never hard, because all of them can be exploited or bruteforced in some way due to the lack of urgency / reactions required during the combat, it's impossible to make them challenging for a veteran player.

Its less about the game being challenging since the AI will always be super exploitable, but more about making the player think and actively make choices. When was the last time the base game has made you appreciate a pokemon being either a fast volt-turner or a slow bulky one, or made you think about using webs, or made you think about using weather, or trick room /tailwind, or made you really appreciate defensive typing? Think about it this way: what action made players appreciate their team more/ created a memorable moment in a run; clutching out X difficult totem battle or the grass gym leader from sword and shield.
What would make you appreciate a new generation of pokemon more; pressing A and OHKOing pokemon, and in the rare case you don't they hit you back with a 50-70 base power move or using useless status moves, or a game where you actually have to lean on a pokemon's strengths. That's what people really mean when they say they want a hard mode.

 

[Ironmage]

Its less about the game being challenging since the AI will always be super exploitable, but more about making the player think and actively make choices. When was the last time the base game has made you appreciate a pokemon being either a fast volt-turner or a slow bulky one, or made you think about using webs, or made you think about using weather, or trick room /tailwind, or made you really appreciate defensive typing? Think about it this way: what action made players appreciate their team more/ created a memorable moment in a run; clutching out X difficult totem battle or the grass gym leader from sword and shield.
What would make you appreciate a new generation of pokemon more; pressing A and OHKOing pokemon, and in the rare case you don't them hitting you back with a 50-70 base power move or using useless status moves, or a game where you actually have to lean on a pokemon's strengths. That's what people really mean when they say they want a hard mode.

To add to this, when I did my damageless run of USUM, I deliberately tried to avoid "better stats" as a solution to a problem. Yeah, I could have easily got several level 100s as soon as the downtime training was available, but that wasn't why I was playing the run. In all honesty, I had picked USUM expressly because it seemed most likely to have something that couldn't be beat by level-grinding after getting a bit disappointed with the relaitve lack of strategy in an Emerald damageless run I had watched. Looking back, KOing something without incident was not memorable, level grinding was boring, but it was worth it to have a run where Mold Breaker, Disguise, priority, and Natrual Gift actually determined whether I won or lost.

 

[Worldie]

What would make you appreciate a new generation of pokemon more; pressing A and OHKOing pokemon, and in the rare case you don't they hit you back with a 50-70 base power move or using useless status moves, or a game where you actually have to lean on a pokemon's strengths. That's what people really mean when they say they want a hard mode.

Honestly? Neither. I don't play pokemon for the challenge (if i wanted a challenge i'd play other genres), I play it cause I like the cute looks and the design as well as the usually chill story and the music.

Unsurprisingly I think SwSh are great games, with issues, but still great nontheless, because I don't buy them for features they don't have, but for the features I expect.
I even ended up speedrunning them for fun, and honestly, they are indeed great fun with the DLC routes.

Same reason I will day 1 buy both Gen 4 remakes and Arceus Legends (even with all the scepticism I have toward both), because they are Pokemon games and I find them fun.

(If it isnt clear, my message is that people still expecting a challenge from this series have been delusional for last 4 generations or so)

 

[Siggu]

(If it isnt clear, my message is that people still expecting a challenge from this series have been delusional for last 4 generations or so)

I've had more of a challenge ever since I stopped thinking about it.

(Images of my Moon and Ultra Sun teams having a majority of Pokémon with stacking weaknesses)

 

[Worldie]

I've had more of a challenge ever since I stopped thinking about it.

(Images of my Moon and Ultra Sun teams having a majority of Pokémon with stacking weaknesses)

I actually had a moderate challenge myself in both USUM and SwSh simply by deciding to play on Set and playing blind, and using mostly "cute" pokemon rather than pseudo leges or good ones.

Notably my USUM team happened to be a bunch of psychic, ghost and dark type, in a game that for some reason happens to have an abundance of bug and dark coverage on enemies. Spoilers, Alakazam can't switch into anything.

 

[Bakugames]

The only bad thing about a forced exp share in a theoretical game that gives you good difficulty because of it is the fact you have no way to control your EV yield for each pokemon. But this brings into another rant:

I'm not sure if this fits here or in the Little Things That Annoy You thread, because this isn't exactly a little thing, but the entire facet of competitive pokemon as it stands and even important to some types of in game runs, so I'll put it here:

The EV and IV system sucks ass. Clunky, hard to learn, and to keep track. We've had a lot of QOL improvements, but a lot of it has just been skirting past the entire system and bandaid fixes. The game refusing to give concrete numbers to this day doesn't help.

I've been playing a demo of an upcoming game, called Coromon, and they did something really interesting: they fused the EV and IV system from pokémon into their own "potential" system.

A Coromon has two level bars. One for their normal level up, which gives static raised stats related to the species. Then, you have the potential level bar. Every time your potential bar levels up, you gain the ability to increase the base stats of your Coromon by 3 points. You can distribute those points in any way you want.
While base stats and level-up stats are the same for every species, a Coromon's potential is individual. The potential can go from 1 to 21, with 1 being the worst and 21 being the best. The higher your potential, the less exp needed to level up your potential bar, so the more points you can give to your Coromon. The potential system is also linked to the way the game handles shinies, but that's not really relevant.

This made me realize there are so many ways to implement the IV/EV concept into pokémon that end up more streamlined and easy to learn. I really feel like EV/IV needs a rehaul again.

 

[Sonikku A]

The only bad thing about a forced exp share in a theoretical game that gives you good difficulty because of it is the fact you have no way to control your EV yield for each pokemon. But this brings into another rant:

I'm not sure if this fits here or in the Little Things That Annoy You thread, because this isn't exactly a little thing, but the entire facet of competitive pokemon as it stands and even important to some types of in game runs, so I'll put it here:

The EV and IV system sucks ass. Clunky, hard to learn, and to keep track. We've had a lot of QOL improvements, but a lot of it has just been skirting past the entire system and bandaid fixes. The game refusing to give concrete numbers to this day doesn't help.

I've been playing a demo of an upcoming game, called Coromon, and they did something really interesting: they fused the EV and IV system from pokémon into their own "potential" system.

A Coromon has two level bars. One for their normal level up, which gives static raised stats related to the species. Then, you have the potential level bar. Every time your potential bar levels up, you gain the ability to increase the base stats of your Coromon by 3 points. You can distribute those points in any way you want.
While base stats and level-up stats are the same for every species, a Coromon's potential is individual. The potential can go from 1 to 21, with 1 being the worst and 21 being the best. The higher your potential, the less exp needed to level up your potential bar, so the more points you can give to your Coromon. The potential system is also linked to the way the game handles shinies, but that's not really relevant.

This made me realize there are so many ways to implement the IV/EV concept into pokémon that end up more streamlined and easy to learn. I really feel like EV/IV needs a rehaul again.

Reminder that IVs were hard set for no reason compared to EVs for 5 gens
Just whyyyyy

 

[DreamPrince]

This started quite a discussion. Time to make some replies.

Something that stuck out to me reading this is that it did not consider my largest issue with three houses. Specifically, that it is a step back in the ability to produce interesting and synergistic skill builds, which is where I got most of my time and enjoyment from the previous entries. To be honest, I haven't played 3H all the way through because I don't feel like the game respects my playstyle enough to make it enjoyable. If we're going to parallel that to pokemon, we're probably back to talking about the Natdex mess.

Also going to disagree with your main point. I don't owe the masses enough to feel like their preferences are more valid than my own, and I don't consider "does this make business sense" to be an indication of whether a game is good. So to me, this is completely irrelevant to whether I consider newer pokemon games or 3H to be well-designed.

I actually disagree. I believe Three Houses does allow you to create skill sets that do combo well together. One example would be Batallion Wrath + Battalion Vantage + Lancefaire + Counterattack to give Dimitri guaranteed first attack + 95% crit chance every time regardless of distance attacked. Was my MVP for my Azure Moon playthrough.


You are right, just because it’s understandable from a business point of view does not mean it’s a good game design choice. But in the end, its very subjective, and its best to go with the decisions that the majority will like. I’ll go back to Dexit. If it truly was because they did not have enough time to implement models as well as reaching the deadline for Merch to sell, then yes it’s an understandable decision. Does it make it a bad game design choice? Well, that really depends on who you ask. If you talk to a Smogon player or a casual veteran, they will probably say yes. But if you to talk to a VGC player or a brand-new Pokémon player, they might say yes for the former and don’t care for the latter. For those that don’t know, with the people I’ve spoken with on Smogon VGC Discord, they have told me that they are used to a Dex cut because each VGC year is this format: Regional Dex, National Dex, and GS Cup last. Because of the Regional Dex formats, lot of players from VGC didn’t mind a Dexcut. In fact, some thought it was great because it allowed certain Pokémon like Butterfree to thrive. In the end, features and design choice are very subjective and people shouldn’t act like their opinion is the universal opinion and developers can’t expect to cater to a small minority over the larger demographic when the larger demographic gives them more money.

If that is in fact your opinion, I respectfully disagree. Pre-Gen 6 games never really suffered commercially. It's not like Pokémon was some starving franchise on life support which needed to dumb down its difficulty in Gen 6 in order to retain its core audience. The reduction in difficulty really doesn't have a good reason behind it, in my eyes. Removing more enhanced post game battle facilities like the Frontier and PWT kind of goes together with this point. While those facilities are difficult compared to main campaigns, it's not as if younger or casual fans are forced to partake in them. They could even set smaller goals for themselves than trying to obtain all Gold symbols at the Frontier, for example.

Its true Pokemon games have always been successful, its wasn’t always like that. Around the launch of RS, PokeMania was fading. According to Tamashii Hiroka, this was the reason why FRLG were made, they were a safe adventure that could encourage players new to Pokémon to join. Compared to GS and RB, RS did not sell nearly as well despite being the best selling game on the GBA, 16 million copies sold compared to 20 Million for GS and 31 Million for RB.

Worldie already touched on this, but Battle Facilities take a lot of extra time, and it’s a feature that only hard core players could take advantage of, and the amount of hard core players vs Casual players very small, especially in a time where VGC was just starting, which was Platinum. And the last time they created a game dedicated to competitive battling, Battle Revolution, sold poorly and was widely criticized for its lack of options of a casual player.

Older Fire Emblem games, for instance, had terrible accessibility to all but very hardcore Tactical RPG players and were difficult, until FE Awakening, Fates, 3H, and vice versa added a casual mode and other player friendly conveniences for newer players to get into the games more easily. That's not an inherently bad concept: what likely is the concern is how it's executed in practice making the games seemingly less fun for more experienced/hardcore players.

They actually tried nailing this with Fates as mentioned earlier, with Birthright being designed for newcomers and Conquest being designed to be a challenge. Sadly due to the polarized reception of Fates ( It’s widely considered to have the worst story of any FE game ) they probably won’t being trying that again. And there’s also the fact that DLC model they used wouldn’t work on Switch. For those that don’t know, Fates campaigns work like this: You choose one campaign based on the Box Art you choose, and you have to purchase the other two campaigns separately. So it’s essentially an 80$ Game. On the bright side, each campaign is own game in terms of length. Something like this wouldn’t work on Switch due to the increased price of Switch games- it would be 30$ should the DLC model be handled on Switch.

And as a reminder: Gen V is the one with the lowest sales of all generations (well, technically it's Gen VIII but there's the DP remakes soon so...). Sure, we can excuse that to when it was released, and that BW has the lowest sales of any opening game pair of a generation. Even the heavily criticized USUM sold (barely) more than the acclaimed BW2 (in fact, only Platinum, Emerald, and Crystal sold less than BW2 - oh well, look at that, three of the bottom four have extensive battle facilities...).

I feel like this is less because they were bad games and more like the DS was overshadowed by the 3DS by that point. The 3 DS came out at the same year as BW, while the DS was more or less dead when BW2 came out. BW2 even had software that provided benefits if played on the 3DS. Also keep in mind that XY was announced only after three months after BW2 were in the west. They had the “ new game “ syndrome for a very short time. I think they sold very well for that time period.

My frustration boiled over with the sword and shield base game which was the worst experience I have ever had with pokemon: first, the exploration aspect of pokemon has been dying since gen 6 and sword and shield didn't even have a single optional route (not to mention an aggressively mediocre wild area); second, I felt I could legitimately close my eyes and spam A and never be in danger of losing a single battle. It made for a crazy empty experience and I straight up loathe the base game because of it. Then I played a difficulty hack and I had a genuinely great time. The increase in difficulty really made the mobile pc shine and I actually had a reason to use a 10 pokemon roster beyond forcing myself to. The crazy thing is that Game Freak has it easy since the vast majority of fans judge pokemon by a different set of standards than other games ( don't have to worry about pesky things like pushing technological boundaries or an engaging story) but they still wont give us something as standard as difficulty settings. VGC has been a thing for a little more than a decade and they literally just put long overdue QOL updates in the most recent game to give some people easier access to competitive play which means they know there is an audience that would appreciate a hard mode, but they still wont do it. At this point I am just going to wait until a good rom hack comes out before I buy any of the games, its straight up embarrassing that they cant deliver on already lowered expectations.

here:

The EV and IV system sucks ass. Clunky, hard to learn, and to keep track. We've had a lot of QOL improvements, but a lot of it has just been skirting past the entire system and bandaid fixes. The game refusing to give concrete numbers to this day doesn't help.

Where’s the unpopular opinion?

An actual unpopular opinion I have: the forced monkey tutorial for the first gym in BW1 was a good idea. Many people dislike this and I understand why, but in reality, borderline character select forcing / strongly recommended options even existed way back in Generation 1: only Grass and Water types can really stomach Misty and Starmie's BubbleBeam. Sure, you can overlevel by going to Vermillion, but I'd imagine most people would want their shiny new badge first if they didn't know going to Bill meant that path opened up and you could sequence break. Granted, the monkey is the ONLY option, so it's not 1:1 but with Cheren showing up frequently it's nice to get the player equipped for their starter and I don't mind a soft-reboot teaching me the basics rather than HEY DO YOU KNOW HOW TO USE THE POKE FINDER LET'S FIRE UP A TUTORIAL YES / YES? It's not the best execution sure, but many people forget the monkeys are solid Pokemon, yes, even Simisear once it gets Flame Burst.

I agree. I think it’s really cool that they used gyms as a way to show off type matchups. Yes you have to use the monkey, but you can immediately deposit it in the PC once the battle is over.

Lastly on the EXP Share: I agree with people saying that it does not make the game easier. I’ve played games where the EXP share was on the whole time, and never got over leveled or did I game easier. That also includes SwSh. I was never over leveled in SwSh.