(Little) Things that annoy you in Pokémon

Something that bugs me, it's been admitted that mon designers don't get to choose what type or even ability/movepool their mon gets. The fact this happens is pretty bad, but it made me realize something

Could the reason that mon designs became more blatantly obvious and contemporary to their be the result of that? To mitigate incorrect intentions of the dev?
I can honestly see it. Fairy for new types almost always
-are lacey
-are pink
-are related to desserts
Despite Mawhile existing

On the other hand, Dragon is such a curveball, with Alolan Exeggutor being the most noted

Still, kind of wish designers got to have input for mon base
 
I imagine stuff like Fairy are because that's the designated style guide.

We know that while designers often have their designs tweaked to meet some other criteria (Frillish becomming ghost type, Stunfisk ground as examples) they also get orders to okay design something pertaining to X Y Z concept.
Sometimes its "we need more ice types", leading to Turner creating the Vanillish line. When creating a type for that, it's very likely that they have some very style guides to at least marginally adhere to, or that otherwise get worked as they massage the concept. You want an ice type, so you get something often made out of ice. You want a fairy type, the fairy type is the designated Pink type that often has frils/lace or what have you. Water types almost certainly gonna be a weird fish and probably be blue.
Or they want a specific kind of gimmick, and design to that. I imagine Sawsbuck was specifically "we want a grass type that changes with the seasons". Cramorant & Arrokuda probably designed as a pair for the sake of "pokemon that interacts with another pokemon as a mechanic"

Instances like Stunfisk & Frillish and so on are probably relatively rare and down later in development to better fill a niche.

So I don't necessarily think that they're purposely designing their Pokemon "more blatantly obvious & contemporary" (which...little subjective, I feel) so they can mitigate ~incorrect intentions~ (also they could just still order a change in design ala stunfisk so...), it's just...how the design process works sometimes. Wooloo probably wasn't made white, so round and shown rolling in concept art to make sure it was going to get Rollout and have dex entries related to Rolling and to ensure it was a Normal type. It was probably just they neede to make an "early game normal type" and they thought of a cute sheep whose gimmick was rolling around. Stonjourner is pretty contemproary and wound up being pure rock with big legs that lets it get a kicking move, but that was probably more "Hey we should have a stonehenge Pokemon" or "we want a rock type with HUGE defense" and the legs came as a natural part of that design and stonehenge is a big set of rocks so the actual gameplay designers just ran with it.


Also I can't exactly blame them for not having every artist outline the moves and stats they should have? Some artists are just that: artists who don't have much gaming know-how. Others are probably guest artists just brought on for design work. Others probably have better use of their time elsewhere in the game and not having to spend time coming up with a bunch of moves probably helps the process; at least designing a Pokemon itself is probably an activity most people would leap at.
 
The stone monuments (and thus, Stonjourner) are a fairly prominent feature in Turffield, as well as in the route preceding it. I think it's a pretty neat cultural nod.
Turffield_SwSh.png

Where can you find Stonjourner? Not only is it not found anywhere near this town, it's also one of the Pokemon they chose to be version-exclusive for some reason. So if you have Shield you can come into this town, see all this Stonjourner related stuff, and then it turns out you can't actually get it. I know that "version exclusives bad" is preaching to the choir but this one is especially egregious.

Edit: Being so early in the game, having a single-stage's BST is a bit of an issue. Still, they could have made it possible to obtain around this area by giving it a prevo or designing the region so that the Stonehenge stuff is later in the game.
 
Last edited:
Something I debated last night in a server, it was about buffing early route mons. The other party didnt like the idea, even though I noted that changing evo level to compensate so early main game campaign wouldn't be as affected, while still helping them late game and comp. They argued that the principle of cycling weak mons should be respected, except...

Literally every game the starter is just better immediately (well bar Starly)

So theres little to no point using an early route mon regardless (I'm aware of nuzlockes, but most casuals don't do those)
:psysad:
 
Last edited:

Samtendo09

Ability: Light Power
is a Pre-Contributor
Something I debated last night in a server, it was about buffing early route mons. The other party didnt like the idea, even though I noted that changing evo level to compensate so early main game campaign wouldn't be as affected, while still helping them late game and comp. They argued that the principle of cycling weak mons should be respected, except...

Literally every game the starter is just better immediately (well bar Starly)

So theres little to no point using an early route mon regardless (I'm aware of nuzlockes, but most casuals don't do those)
:psysad:
Don’t get too discouraged, Pokémon isn’t meant to be 100% balanced. This means not every early route mons needs to be viable in long terms, but rather designed for being less specialized and, in few cases, unable to catch up even mid-game, as to encourage the player to not be afraid of catching later mons if necessary.

It’s if the early route Pokémon that are trash even at the time of being caught and, for the very early bloomers, even if fully evolved that it is where I object.
 

ScraftyIsTheBest

On to new Horizons!
is a Top Contributor Alumnusis a Smogon Media Contributor Alumnus
Something I debated last night in a server, it was about buffing early route mons. The other party didnt like the idea, even though I noted that changing evo level to compensate so early main game campaign wouldn't be as affected, while still helping them late game and comp. They argued that the principle of cycling weak mons should be respected, except...

Literally every game the starter is just better immediately (well bar Starly)

So theres little to no point using an early route mon regardless (I'm aware of nuzlockes, but most casuals don't do those)
:psysad:
Well the thing is you have to look at them in the context of how they perform throughout the game. The starter is probably "better" off the bat as well as in the long term, but the thing is that you cannot rely solely on your starter to get through the game, even early on. You will need mons to cover for whatever your mon is weak to throughout the game. So if you have the Water starter, you will need to cover for Grass-types, and the early game Bug-type and bird will do well to cover that, the former at least early on.

Let's look at a case like, say Caterpie and Weedle, for example. These mons have a distinct gimmick for an early game Pokemon: they evolve all the way through a three-stage metamorphosis phase early on. The early Bugs are a distinct tutorial mon for a new player that teaches the player several important concepts, mainly that of evolution. So let's say you catch a Caterpie and start raising it. Then you raise it to Level 7 and it evolves into Metapod, then at Level 10 it evolves once more into Butterfree. It does this well before your starter evolves even once, and through the larva-pupa-imago transformation that caterpillars go through to become butterflies, which is something many kids are taught in elementary school, so this explicitly teaches them the concept of evolution in a way that's intuitive to a kid. Once a kid sees this, they will understand what is happening when their starter reaches Level 16 and begins to evolve the first time.

And once the Bug fully evolves at Level 10, that Butterfree or Beedrill (or whatever early Bug they have) will be a powerhouse early on. Compared to all fully evolved Pokemon, yes, they stand out as notably weak, but at the point where they first evolve? They are much stronger than anything your opponents will throw at you and will be a powerhouse early on, being able to take hits from their first stage mons and hit back hard in return. Anything your starter cannot defeat, your Bug will surely help cover against them. Butterfree and Beedrill are very strong for the early portion of the game, and will continue to be a helpful crutch until, say, the mid 20s or 30s, where they then fall off. Yes, this encourages the player to rotate their team, because the game wants you to explore and catch the mons who show up later in the mid-game and late-game, and so the first five Pokemon you catch shouldn't be strong enough to cover your needs for the whole game. If it's Pidgey, Starly, Fletchling, or whatever variant of the three-stage early bird, then yes, you will probably be inclined to keep it because the early route bird is designed to be good for the whole game, but your Bug will be first in line to go out the door, and the rodent soon after.

And though the early game mons fall off as the game goes on, they aren't terrible the whole way through. Rather, they are crutches who will help deal with anything your starter cannot for the early portions, so that you always have backup for your starter at any point, so you don't have to deprive yourself of teammates for your starter until the mid and late game if the good mons don't show up until then. That early game Bug evolves all the way and teaches a player the concept of Pokemon evolution, and then serves as a strong teammate for the early portion of the game. That rodent/mammal with Raticate, Bibarel, etc. is a hard carry that is a catch all attacker against everything: Rattata for example learns Hyper Fang early, and evolves early at Level 20, so until the 30s, it's a powerhouse with a strong Hyper Fang that decimates most of the early game opponents until it falls off at around Level 30, where better Normal-types like Snorlax, Kangaskhan, and Tauros start showing up. At that point, Raticate's stats won't cut it anymore, but at the same time, your available options increase, so now you make room for more teammates to take their place. Or take a case like BW Watchog, who can be a competent team member until around, say the high 30s, at which point you gain options like Cinccino, Sawsbuck, Scrafty, and Bouffalant.

That's the thing with early game mons: you have to look at them in the context of how they perform at the point where they are obtained. If you look at things like the Bugs and the rodents in a vacuum, compared to every other fully evolved Pokemon, yes, they stand out as notably weak. But in the context of the early portion of a typical Pokemon adventure, they are quite strong for the early portion. They grow stronger very quickly, evolve early, and their stats are strong for the point where they evolve. The Bug will carry you for the early segments of the game as it's faster and stronger than most of what your opponents will throw at you. The Rodent, who evolves at Level 20 usually, will kick butt against most of the mons who show up in the 20s. And the rodent's neutral coverage and power will make them a strong catch all attacker. They don't keep up long term, but they can cover your starter early on while you still raise your starter slowly to its epic final form, which is still a long ways away, and help against opponents your starter cannot cover early on.

Your starter is, for all intents and purposes, of course, designed to be the sole permanent member of your team aside from the bird, but it reaches its full potential relatively slowly, evolving once at Level 16, but reaching its final form in the 30s, so it won't always be equipped to handle everything early on, until it reaches its final form in the 30s. The early game mons may fall off, but they have the boon of growing strong quickly and carrying you before doing so, all the while your starter steadily grows stronger until it finally reaches its epic and awesome final form. At the point your early game mons fall off your available options increase, and with it you can get even stronger Pokemon to start building a proper team around your starter with teammates who are of a similar caliber of power to where your starter's final form is at.

One of the goals of a Pokemon game is to complete the Pokedex, and to catch every mon in the Dex, so catching the early mons, then ditching them when they fall off and replacing them to make room for new ones later on, is the main way this is designed to work: you keep catching mons and having a team that serves as your collective gear and squad for every point of the game, swapping out weaker ones for stronger ones as the power level of the game rises, ensures that you will continue to progress towards filling the Pokedex in such a manner.
 
Let's look at a case like, say Caterpie and Weedle, for example. These mons have a distinct gimmick for an early game Pokemon: they evolve all the way through a three-stage metamorphosis phase early on. The early Bugs are a distinct tutorial mon for a new player that teaches the player several important concepts, mainly that of evolution.
They're great for teaching the gameplay mechanic of evolution, but Butterfree and Beedrill are still fairly weak even for that first moment they've fully evolved. At level 10 (at least in RBY) their best moves are Tackle and Poison Sting, respectively. That just doesn't compare well with Pidgey, Rattata, and Spearow starting out with STAB moves, even with the BST advantage. Nidiran-M is also notable for its early Horn Attack, comparable damage to early STAB moves. In terms of move power, Butterfree and Beedrill are quite lacking.

Then there are the disadvantages in raising Caterpie and Weedle. They have both low stats and low BP moves, and they're in the Medium Fast EXP curve, which levels slower earlier on than Medium Slow. This makes leveling Pokémon like the starter, Pidgey, and Nidoran easier and faster. So much so that even if your goal is just to beat Brock, overleveling a Charmander is faster and easier than raising a Butterfree to 12 for Confusion. Level 12 for Medium Fast is 1,728 EXP, Medium Slow hits that at just 973 EXP, level 14 at 1,612 EXP. Charmander grinds so much faster with STAB Ember compared to Tackle on the Caterpie line, it's fairly easy to get an even higher level with the same time investment. The leveling disadvantage also plays a factor in mitigating the BST advantage Butterfree and Beedrill have.

Then when you do have them, the starter evolves a couple levels later and you get Moon Stones for the Nidos, and now you have access to fully evolved Nidos sitting at a BST that well exceeds that of Butterfree and Beedrill, over 100 points higher in RBY. Butterfree and Beedrill are already outclassed in BST shortly after the first badge. Butterfree does offer a non-STAB Confusion that's decently powerful at this point in the game, but that isn't particularly strong compared to what a mid-stage starter or a fully evolved Nido can do.

With weak base forms and a poor leveling rate combined with a low power moveset and a very short window where they're actually the strongest Pokémon available (even if just in terms of BST), I just can't agree with the notion that Butterfree and Beedrill are earlygame powerhouses. They're quite weak even in the most optimal circumstances for them.
 
Every time I see people arguing about suboptimal design and moveset or stat shortcoming about gen 1 or 2 pokemon I giggle at how noone ever remembers the fact gen 1 and 2 games are old, unbalanced, made with no experience, and with literally 0 interest in having pokemon "good" or "competitive" or even remotely balanced, and only designed on a whim about "would a kid like to grow up a caterpie in a butterfly" and "what about a dragon that spits fire".

Sigh you guys and your inability to contextualize...
 
I don't see what any of that has to do with discussing whether or not Butterfree and Beedrill are at any point at all "powerful".
The simple fact of trying to argue for it is silly, because they weren't thought to be in first place.

All the design behind Butterfree and Beedrill was "pokemon that evolve quickly to introduce the player to multi evolutionary pokemon".

Even trying to imply that they were meant to be a way to "deal with Brock if you started Charmander" falls off when one realizes Beedrill can't do anything differently from Charmander either, other than uuuh fish for poison i guess lol.

They weren't.

There was no design intent behind them other than a evolutionary chain introduction.
No powerhouses.
No "backup plan".

99% of gen 1 is purely either "tutorial pokemon" or whatever the designer's fantasy struck in a point. There's no balance, no "gameplay balance attempt", barely any logic in movesets.

Honestly the complaint about gen 1 and 2 pokemon being "poorly balanced" or "poorly designed" come up so often in this topic (and others) that it boggles me how so many people fail to see the simple logic of "old game is old (and buggy)" that is actually the only explanation.

Edit: it's also worth nothing that at the time, gaming company would often design games with secrets or rare stuff for the sake of selling guides.
Noone would have ever actually thought "oh let me catch a Nidoran so i can evolve it right away in mt moon" playing these games, because how would you actually suppose that Nidorino / Nidorina evolve via Moon stone in first place without a guide or accidentally finding that out?
Discovering that Nidoking / Nidoqueen are insane powerhouses in gen 1 was more of a accidental player thing than intentional design as well. It's extremely unlikely that the intent of devs putting the nidorans near Viridian was "let's give the players a strong powerhouse with expansive moveset", and was instead more on the lines of "so what do we put in this grass? oh what about nidorans"
 

Samtendo09

Ability: Light Power
is a Pre-Contributor
Every time I see people arguing about suboptimal design and moveset or stat shortcoming about gen 1 or 2 pokemon I giggle at how noone ever remembers the fact gen 1 and 2 games are old, unbalanced, made with no experience, and with literally 0 interest in having pokemon "good" or "competitive" or even remotely balanced, and only designed on a whim about "would a kid like to grow up a caterpie in a butterfly" and "what about a dragon that spits fire".

Sigh you guys and your inability to contextualize...
The simple fact of trying to argue for it is silly, because they weren't thought to be in first place.

All the design behind Butterfree and Beedrill was "pokemon that evolve quickly to introduce the player to multi evolutionary pokemon".

Even trying to imply that they were meant to be a way to "deal with Brock if you started Charmander" falls off when one realizes Beedrill can't do anything differently from Charmander either, other than uuuh fish for poison i guess lol.

They weren't.

There was no design intent behind them other than a evolutionary chain introduction.
No powerhouses.
No "backup plan".

99% of gen 1 is purely either "tutorial pokemon" or whatever the designer's fantasy struck in a point. There's no balance, no "gameplay balance attempt", barely any logic in movesets.

Honestly the complaint about gen 1 and 2 pokemon being "poorly balanced" or "poorly designed" come up so often in this topic (and others) that it boggles me how so many people fail to see the simple logic of "old game is old (and buggy)" that is actually the only explanation.
And yet the power creep, where newer Pokémon are arguably better on the spot - not necessarily stronger - didn’t really begun until Gen 5, and even then outside of Legendaries (wheras in their case it started to go too far but that’s another issue entirely), a lot of the newer Pokémon still built with no competitive usage in mind.

The games themselves are certainly significantly lot less buggy, and yet the traditional Gen 3-4 and particularly 6-8 games still felt too much like tutorial without actually teaching the player the vareity of moves, Abilities and especially items outside of BDSP. This leave them wholly unprepared and unfamiliar with the VGC and Battle Spot formats. This includes changes and new stuff that have something to do with competitive scenes such as better accessability for competitive scenes with the Mints and Hyper Training, and the item Heavy-Duty Boots, but those are far and in-between.

Which means obviously, the early game Pokémon aren’t meant to be competitively viable, and the ones that manages to be are exceptions of the rule, such as Corviknight and Gen 6 Talonflame. The power creep really only applies by super mechanics (Megas, Z-Moves, Dynamax especially in Singles) and Legendaries as of late than standard Pokémon themselves, and the lower completely new Pokémon per region since Kalos does not really translate to quality in terms of in-game usage and especially competitive. And having a signature move or Ability, while interesting, may end up fall flat very fast if they cannot back it up properly.

In short, GF didn’t really learned much from the first two games about what makes a really good regular Pokémon and simply design things on complete whim, viability for in-game or especially competitive be damned. It’s to the point where we migt see plenty of all-style-no-substance Pokémon in the next new region in traditional gameplay at this point.
 
In short, GF didn’t really learned much from the first two games about what makes a really good regular Pokémon and simply design things on complete whim, viability for in-game or especially competitive be damned. It’s to the point where we migt see plenty of all-style-no-substance Pokémon in the next new region in traditional gameplay at this point.
I won't actually disagree here, in fact I am convinced you're mostly right and large majority of the Pokemon even today are just designed on flavour and "in game fancyness" rather than actual balance, albeith far more attention nowadays goes to their movesets and abilities at least compared to earlier gens (shoutout to gen 1/2 and part of gen 3 movesets just having random TMs in them for... reasons)

But at same time... I don't see that as a problem either.

As I've probably repeated enough time to make people block me ( :zonger: ), the main design of the series is to appeal kids and be "fun to play", even though with gen 7 and 8 they've started throwing some bones to the actual competitive players and even started to actually try to give more relevance to the competitive scene on Twitch / Youtube.

I fail at seeing the issue with 95% of the pokemon being just... whatever, a fancy teacup spirit, a extremely angry polar bear, or a sleepy koala.
As long as they look and feel unique and cool, they're hitting the intent behind the series.
And as far as functionality goes, outside of pokemon specifically made to be a joke or a cultural reference (which are also fine), pretty much every Pokemon in a given game is usable without making the games impossible (a product of the fact that the games are pretty easy anyway).

Also I'll make the usual quote... every time you try to make a pokemon better, you're making another worse. Every time you make a new pokemon, one or more older ones become obsolete.
You can't ""fix"" bad pokemon. It's pointless. That's also why at GameFreaks they don't even *try* to fix them, and instead focus on likeability and flavour. It'd literally be a waste of development time.

...and in the extremely unlikely chance that every single pokemon was balanced... then... that means they're all the same, so what's the point of having 150 fire types if they're all identical and perform the same exact things?
 

Samtendo09

Ability: Light Power
is a Pre-Contributor
I won't actually disagree here, in fact I am convinced you're mostly right and large majority of the Pokemon even today are just designed on flavour and "in game fancyness" rather than actual balance, albeith far more attention nowadays goes to their movesets and abilities at least compared to earlier gens (shoutout to gen 1/2 and part of gen 3 movesets just having random TMs in them for... reasons)

But at same time... I don't see that as a problem either.

As I've probably repeated enough time to make people block me ( :zonger: ), the main design of the series is to appeal kids and be "fun to play", even though with gen 7 and 8 they've started throwing some bones to the actual competitive players and even started to actually try to give more relevance to the competitive scene on Twitch / Youtube.

I fail at seeing the issue with 95% of the pokemon being just... whatever, a fancy teacup spirit, a extremely angry polar bear, or a sleepy koala.
As long as they look and feel unique and cool, they're hitting the intent behind the series.
And as far as functionality goes, outside of pokemon specifically made to be a joke or a cultural reference (which are also fine), pretty much every Pokemon in a given game is usable without making the games impossible (a product of the fact that the games are pretty easy anyway).

Also I'll make the usual quote... every time you try to make a pokemon better, you're making another worse. Every time you make a new pokemon, one or more older ones become obsolete.
You can't ""fix"" bad pokemon. It's pointless. That's also why at GameFreaks they don't even *try* to fix them, and instead focus on likeability and flavour. It'd literally be a waste of development time.

...and in the extremely unlikely chance that every single pokemon was balanced... then... that means they're all the same, so what's the point of having 150 fire types if they're all identical and perform the same exact things?
You’re right on the likeability and flavour standpoint, and diversity is especially an important point, but nobody in their right mind would rather have an even more stagnant metagame by leaving the most obnoxiously overpowered Pokémon untouched even by Legendary standards, or worse, not bothering nerfing them despite damaging the competitive scene. There is a reason why the Restrictive formats in VGC, despite some flaws, proved a safeguard, and yet it doesn’t solve having to deal with Kyogre or Zacian 90% of the time.

And if you can’t make a game well balanced or hard, as I said before, just make them interesting and teach casual players there’s more than types to learn about, especially important for competitive scenes they could have interest on. Don’t hold back on that the Pokémon, their moves, their Abilities and held items can do, instead of making the NPC opponents, especially boss opponents like Gym Leaders, rely almost entirely on level up moveset and no held items. Again, no need to make them difficult or throw a Choice Band on an early route trainer - simply make so it starts simple and typical of the usual, and then steadily throw in coverage and held items in accordance of usefulness (from situational to generally good), and making the team synergy more and more important.

Not easy to do, but once you experimented with a large variety of teams, moves and held items, you can reproduce this experience in a fangame at reasonable pace, and provided you gave enough variety of Pokémon within NPCs. “Made for kids” is an excuse of lack of difficulty (but not making them exceedingly easy to the point even children wished it wasn’t that easy on second walkthroughs) but not poor showing of moves, abilities and held items in general. And they can just grind to overlevel as a safety net anyways.

Now, who here said that bad Pokémon cannot be redeemed? Nobody would want to use Gligar or Sneasel if Gliscor and Weavile respectively didn’t existed, and while evolution and new gimmick like Mega Evo isn‘t a guaranteed fix (and not permanent as we saw with what happened to Megas) it all comes down to execution than anything else. And lower wholly new Pokémon per region since Kalos does not excuse the fact that the quality-quantity ratio didn’t raised in terms of likeabiltiy and flavor, something Alola did better but then we had a near 180 for Galar.
 
My issue with the early game tutorial Pokemon type of design is that it runs very counter to a theme of the games, be it something designed into the aesthetic and tone, or simply something grafted onto the franchise by marketing the fantasy animals: the idea that a Trainer and their Pokemon are supposed to bond and be partners/companions.

From a gameplay perspective, having planned obsolescence for the early game bugs and such isn't to dissimilar from other Monster RPG's I've become familiar with: Dragon Quest Monsters is designed similarly, and as I understand so are the Demons in Shin Megami Tensei, two other prominent Mon-RPG's that I imagine Pokemon took looks at on a macro level at least, given the former IP's ubiquity in Japan and just the need for a framework on the first outing.

The thing is, in the other two IPs, the monsters are generally treated more as a resource or rank-and-file from what I can tell, usually through two aspects I saw in DQM in particular
  1. Little dialogue tends to emphasize more than maybe a couple very specific companion monsters. Pokemon by comparison says that, at large, good trainers treat their Pokemon as friends while bad people use them as tools or things (Team Rocket, Ghetsis, etc.), just on the whole rather than in reference to something specific like your Starter or one true companion mon.
  2. Game progression mechanics that more actively call for "expending" monsters to make yourself stronger in some fashion. The most immediate way this shows itself is through Fusion, where you can use your monsters to pass traits or abilities to other ones created by fusing them together, either into a new one or passing abilities from one to another. This is a mechanic that is actively harder to play around because on top of passing on old skills, you also see benefits like the level cap raising or higher base stats the more "generations" a monster has been through. Pokemon's closest analogue is breeding, which realistically is more for preparing stronger PVP members with Egg Moves and such than something necessary or practical in the main game
    • You can't acquire new species through Pokemon breeding, and Egg moves must be passed from the parent's current learnset (at least in the games where I'm familiar with breeding), meaning it's more about consolidating things you have than gaining access to new/more power
    • There's obviously a time investment, as Monster fusion produces a monster who is quick to catch up even if the system resets their level, whether through alternative EXP gains or easier-to-carry battle mechanics for their babying period, vs the 1-v-1 nature of Pokemon Battles making the grind a bit slower for catch up (even tagging out on current trainers probably will take a bit to reach the below-current point in level where they can still handle themselves). On top of this, the Pokemon breeding process involves yet more time sinks in the form of both waiting for the egg to spawn and hatching the Baby Pokemon that again slow down what is a very easy main game anyway
I got a bit rambly there with the mechanical discussion, but what I wanted to point out is that Pokemon is not an IP that wants you to view Pokemon as replaceable or disposable, which makes it a bit mismatched when some design elements seem to encourage rotation/detachment (Trading emphasis, gimmick Pokemon who actively make the game harder to use, sticking to a typical early-game-crutch design for several starting lines) while others reasonably play into the intention (Friendship mechanics, the time investment/raising idea of Pokemon Breeding and Hatching, the story and dialogue whenever Pokemon as an element are discussed).

This is where I think the Com-Mon design (which despite a few exceptions, still is how the archetypes function at large) runs counter to what the games try to sell the creatures on. The Early Bugs and such are typically the Pokemon that the player is going to see and in many cases use first, but they fall off to such an extent after they plateau that even if you carry them, they stop feeling like part of a team and more of a tagalong pet, if that, even if you're a kid who still gets very into the fantasy presented. Meanwhile it's easy to notice that a lot of veteran players, even those who still really enjoy the Pokemon experience, are prone to writing off or skipping a lot of early mons because they're not going to be able to take them to be Champions without a bunch of work that they don't feel like putting in (before the capture and thus any attachment made to a Pokemon).

Hell, some of the cases I notice the most praise for on roster design are those where the early game Mons include members that can in fact work with you to the end (Nidos in Gen 1, Gen 2 Geodude, Gen 4 Staraptor and Luxray, Gen 5-2's early variety with Magnemite, Riolu, etc).

For the record, I fully believe the idea that Gen 1 and 2 were Gamefreak finding legs with designing a game like this as Worldie discusses a lot, so the above issues in those cases would come from inexperience more than active incompetence. That said, it is an explanation for what I ultimately think is still questionable design-marketing overlap for an IP banking so hard on that aspect across its multimedia incarnations, and the fact that it's arguably still an issue in present day installments is a different issue in that they're either not learning from the shortcomings, or actively sticking to such design out of tradition despite room for improvement.
 
  • You can't acquire new species through Pokemon breeding
Baby Pokemon in Gen II and III worked that way, since they couldn't be found in the wild(outside of Wynaut on Mirage Island but good luck getting that). until the last few game, the non-pokedex reason to even attempt to bother with the incense babies is that they either had exclusive level up moves(Wynaut having encore) or having Egg moves their evolutions lacked(Recover for Chingling). Both examples are no-longer the case, however

It can also work that way with branch evolutions, like breeding a hitmonlee and ditto to get a Tyrouge to obtain Hitmontop

And, since I'm just being super technical and actually know what you mean by "new species", there is the unique case of Phione, who cannot evolve into Manaphy.
 
>Starter family is the only one still MIA in all of mainline gen 8
>Followup game got canned with Zygarde being shoehorned into Alola
>Anime's popularity got torpedoed by the League fiasco
>Has the near-universally recognized worst anime movie
>As bosses, the overwhelming majority of the cast have never gotten any sort of rematches that made them competent
>As characters, the cast isn't actually memorable enough to develop legit fanbases nor old enough to have history on their side so they just marinate with minimal fanservice or acknowledgement by Game Freak and affiliates
>Smallest new Pokemon selection ever without something like regional forms or (more than 1) cross-gen evo to supplement it, resulting in them being overshadowed in their own region the worst of any roster not counting Johto or DP Sinnoh
>Worst rivals and a villain that is worse Cyrus
>Only one of its own Pokemon got access to the biggest and most successful generational gimmick
>Said generational gimmick was barely utilized within the core games, was only just about kept out of obligation in the next generation and outright deleted the one after
>In fact the best use of the generational gimmick was in a remake of a then decade-old GBA game
>2/3 of its most successful mons competitively have gotten direct nerfs, one of which (Gale Wings) totally killed any viability

Kalos is bar none the most cucked region, and it's not even close. I think most fans have a general idea that it got dealt a bad hand, and I'm sure some will even argue for things like maybe Galar getting it worse, but the more you really dissect it the more you realize the unfathomable sequence of unfortunate circumstances and decisions Kalos has been put through. I massively doubt Game Freak truly hates any of their creations, but if there's one they've shown glacial apathy towards it's this one.
GF doesn't know what is up.

Kalos is still my favorite region and I love it.
 

QuentinQuonce

formerly green_typhlosion
Another awful downgrade is Raichu, which goes from a rather throaty-sounding crackling shout to just... generic mouse squeaking. The former emphasised how different it is to Pikachu, the latter (which I can't find on Youtube) sounds so feeble and pathetic.
 
Reshiram went from a cool majestic dragon to sounding like a dog with diarrhea



I understand why they'd do cry updates for mons from earlier gens since sound design was more limited when they were made, but imo a lot of the gen 3-5 cries were straight downgrades
At least Black and White Kyurem get to have unique cries now due to keeping Zekrom and Reshiram's old cries.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 1, Guests: 3)

Top