Unpopular opinions

[Pikachu315111]

The simple fact you get told within the first 15 minutes that
- You will die
- You're 15 so "old enough to work"
- Also everyone hates you and you will die

Eh, that really only applies to Cyllene. I'm taking my time with Legends: Arceus (plus things came up so haven't had much time to play), but I do find it a bit ridiculous that at this point I'm a Rank 9 member yet she still treats me as if I'm a Rank 1 who has barely attributed anything.

This skit went on longer than I thought

"Good, you got more research done with the Pokedex. Keep up the good work and we won't have to kick you out"
"... What Rank is Akari?"
"Akari has recently achieved Rank 3"
"Have you ever threatened to throw her out?"
"No. Why would I?"
"BECAUSE I'M RANK 9, 99.9% of the Dex have been filled by me and I'm still filling it faster than any other member of this group, am personally requested by Kamado and the Clans to help resolve major issues like calming the Noble Pokemon, I've done plenty of requests around the village helping people and getting them closer with Pokemon and even having Pokemon help out with work around the village, and YET you keep threatening me. Meanwhile Akari, though I wouldn't want it to happen to her, is struggling to even train one Pikachu and catch the lowest stage Pokemon yet never have I seen her or the other members who I can catch circles around even get an ounce of scrutiny let alone be told if they don't keep up they're kicked out of the village. I'm not asking for much here, just a little respect for at the very least jump starting the Pokedex project and getting people closer to Pokemon. Like seriously, if I decide to slow down now you're going to kick me out essentially putting a hard stop to the Pokedex project?"
"... Yes. Now get back to work so we don't have to kick you out"
"OOH, WHAT A THREAT, IT'S NOT LIKE I HAVE LEVEL 60+ POKEMON AND HAVE ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO CRAFT EVERYTHING I NEED TO SURVIVE. HECK, WITH ALL THE POKEMON I'VE CAUGHT ALONE I COULD PROBABLY TAKE OVER THIS VILLAGE AND NONE OF YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO STOP ME CAUSE IF YOU TRY MY POKEMON WOULD TURN YOU INTO RED JAM!"
"... Your point?"
"RESPECT! Or at the very least stop with the empty threat of throwing me out of the village!"
"Respect comes from hard work. And if you want me to stop threatening you with expulsion from the village get out there and complete the Dex."
"JHGFAKJSHAJFHALKFHSASD"

Yeah Johto has some availability issues.

Oh good, we're still talking about this on the newest page.

Just gonna put in my two cents: I initially get the idea of wanting to keep some new Pokemon for Kanto from a world-building aspect, like it's not just Johto which has new Pokemon but Kanto too, but gameplay wise it is annoying to see this new Dark/Fire hellhound, Dark/Ice claw weasel, or just want to play around with the new Ghost but for them to be locked post game. Now, while I can't name any off my head, I'm sure there were some other games which locked certain Pokemon off until post game, but that doesn't mean the practice is good. Would it really have hurt to make Houndour a like 1% or 5% encounter in the Burned Tower, Sneasel on Route 42, and Misdreavus in Dark Cave? Like you can have it more likely for them to be encounterable on the Kanto routes hinting that's their home territory, but don't completely lock out a player from using them if they want to and know they're a rare encounter.

Might be part of the reason why B/W2 were bad games.

Continuity is good for world building, and world building is core for rpgs. Pokemon is an rpg.

I see no reason why Kanto's wild mon levels need to be higher when it is a part of the game that is there for fan service. You can already just walk right through it like it was nothing.

Sure it makes sense, but when you're playing a game that puts the routes later it also makes it fill unfulfilling (especially if you have no connection to the previous game its referencing). Level is also already a meta concept, it has been used both to denote the battling experience of the Pokemon but also used as a system to make sure the player's experience remains consistent (think how oddly the Villain Team bosses & admins have their Pokemon which should be super strong around the same level as yours. The Level in this case isn't meant to show experience but rather a meta storytelling mechanic that the player is skilled enough to deal with this threat).

The levels of wild Pokemon have always felt like gameplay contrivances. What are the odds that all the wild animals around your home town are little wimps, and all the wild animals in a given area get stronger in a steady rate that just so happens to match your path through a region?

But as with every game, the story, the world, has to serve the gameplay. If the world or the lore provides a subpar gameplay experience, you change it.

I always thought that they should make it so that, while the "main part" of Routes have low level Pokemon no matter where you are, there are also deeper parts you'll later be able to gain access to (whether via HMs or given permission or whatever) which has higher level Pokemon (and some locations can have several layers with the Pokemon's level increasing each layer). This would allow you to keep the "logical" aspect of the main routes where humans pass by frequently would have only weaker mons around while also giving players who can access the deeper areas stronger opponent to fight (and it makes sense logically as you'll be going into essentially Pokemon lairs).

 

[BIG ASHLEY]

saw someone talking shit about the dancing guys who block your way.............those dudes are awesome and i love them. end of story.

 

[Scorpio]

Now, while I can't name any off my head, I'm sure there were some other games which locked certain Pokemon off until post game, but that doesn't mean the practice is good.

The majority of the cross-gen evos in DP, for one. Beyond that, the only other example that isn’t a legendary (or at least legendary-tier like the Ultra Beasts) is Beldum in RSE, which is quasi-excusable since it’s A) a pseudo-legend, and B) the only example in those games. I think GF realized what a dumb idea it was by DP, so much so that they went out of their way to rectify it in Platinum.

 

[Worldie]

I always thought that they should make it so that, while the "main part" of Routes have low level Pokemon no matter where you are, there are also deeper parts you'll later be able to gain access to (whether via HMs or given permission or whatever) which has higher level Pokemon (and some locations can have several layers with the Pokemon's level increasing each layer). This would allow you to keep the "logical" aspect of the main routes where humans pass by frequently would have only weaker mons around while also giving players who can access the deeper areas stronger opponent to fight (and it makes sense logically as you'll be going into essentially Pokemon lairs).

This kind of scenario is why level scaling would actually work pretty well in a game like Pokemon (expecially if they opt to keep the overworld pokemon & pseudo-openworld settings).

I think Sword and Shield were a inch away from pulling this right to be fair... having mostly weak pokemon in the grass but with clear "strong" pokemon that you would avoid.
Arceus also does something similar, often putting packs of unevolved pokemon that are of the expected player level, but guarded by their evolved version, somethimes alpha, who is instead way higher level.

However, SwSh kinda drops the ball with the fact non-wild area Pokemon don't level scale.
I'm not exactly sure why GF doesn't want to use level scaling everywhere, could have made sense in past with random encounters, but with avoidable visible encounters (potentially even showing the actual enemy level in the UI) I think they could freely use the Arceus system (have both low and high level pokemon in all areas) and give a layer of extra depth to any route, even the earlier ones.

I mean, we know why

they already have enough issues finishing the games as it is, and "route realism" is really the last of their problems, but still, since they pulled it pretty well in Arceus and were a inch away from doing it right in the Wild Area in SwSh, one can hope

 

[theotherguytm]

The dancing people was dumb and a better way to block off the path could have been found.

saw someone talking shit about the dancing guys who block your way.............those dudes are awesome and i love them. end of story.

Ok so basically this and all kinds of similar weird-looking roadblocks in BW(2) come from a very conscious design choice Game Freak made in Gen 5. There is only ONE point in both games combined where a HM is required to progress: the Dreamyard in BW1. This effectively is a HM tutorial, the game shows you how to use HMs, and then lets you use them as little or as much as you'd like after that point. After Gen 4 and its HM overload, this was a very nice change of pace. The only thing I'll say against this is I wish more of the side areas did take advantage of HMs, too often the HM is either just to grab a single item or open a shortcut to an area you've already been to. But basically, when the game gives you Strength or Surf or Waterfall, it's giving you a little nudge and saying, "hey, remember that cave entrance across that river?" Why not go back there and check it out?

By contrast, in previous Pokemon games I think the only instances of being able to do things out of order are where Gym Leaders give you non-essential HMs.
In GSC, the fabled 3 you can do in any order give you the ability to use HMs Fly, Whirlpool and... Nothing. Whirlpool is only required to progress in the Dragon's Den.
In RSE, the skippable Flying Gym Leader gives you Fly.
In DP, you can attempt to do Maylene and Wake in either order, but iirc someone stands outside Wake's gym and blocks you. (They give Fly and Defog.) You still have to do both before the 'follow the Grunt to meet Cynthia' quest is available and you can progress. In Pt, Wake being the 5th leader now gives you Surf, but of course the Surf HM is only given to after said quest and Cyrus battle. Hmm. (Also Wake is higher leveled than Maylene so doing them in the other order would be a pain gameplay-wise).

I think BW was the first step towards removing HMs in later games, but IMO I like the way it reimagined them as exploration and backtracking tools, rather than cure-alls for arbitrary roadblocks (remember the Cut trees outside Team Galactic's Eterna base?)

Non Liner Maps died when B/W came out.

Which is why I heavily disagree with this. Not only are areas like Twist Mountain and Victory Road filled with sidetracks for you to explore, but the way HMs are done explicitly encourages you to backtrack and find areas like the P2 Lab, Cobalion's cave, etc. Older Pokemon games only look non-linear when you backtrack armed with all the HMs. The games themselves are still mostly linear. Basically BW gives you (or at least aims to give you) the choice between exploration and progression as you see fit.

 

[Suspicious Derivative]

Just popping in to bring up the fact that, in both my HG and SS playthroughs, a good 1/2 of my team in each consisted of Kanto Pokémon. And even then, in each game one of those was my starter, and another one was a cross-gen evo, leaving a whopping one entirely new Pokémon on my team for each game (keep in mind that I prefer to have a full team of six by the time I challenge the fifth gym at the latest).

I don't remember how it was when I played G/S/C, but when I played HG/SS, my situation was similar to yours.

Those were my in-game teams:
SoulSilver:
HeartGold:

On SS, I had four Johto Pokémon. One was the starter while another evolves from a Kanto Pokémon. The remaining two were regular Johto Pokémon.
On HG, I had two Johto Pokémon. One was the starter, the other was a regular. Then I also had a Sinnoh Pokémon which evolves from a Johto Pokémon.

Which means that only half of my final teams consisted of Johto Pokémon.

So yeah. Johto definitely has availability issues.

But here is the crazy thing...it doesn't make it worse. If you need to grind to beat the kanto gym leaders I really really question how you even made it to Kanto.

I didn't need to grind in Kanto, but it would have been nice if I had been able to. I don't remember exactly how I did when I played G/S/C, but in HG/SS, I had trained all members of my in-game teams to level 50 before taking on the E4. After having gone through Kanto, beating every Gym Leader and every regular trainer, my teams had barely grown to level 60. Less than ten levels in an entire region. That is far too little.

What I want to say is that while I didn't need to grind against wild Pokémon in Kanto, it would have been great if I had been able to. But since the wild Pokémon in Kanto are so pathetically weak, it is basically impossible to grind against them, which meant that the only experience my teams got were from fighting regular trainers and Gym Leaders. While the Johto games have trainer rematches, I find the rematch system to be way too complicated and tedious to bother with. Especially in HG/SS, never really tried it in G/S/C.

Regarding levels... I said this in my last post, and other people have posted about as well, but I consider levels to be a gameplay element and nothing more. They do not contribute to worldbuilding in my eyes. Having wild Pokémon at high levels in the late-game areas is not "fan service", it is good gameplay. To me, what contributes to worldbuilding is the Pokémon themselves as well as other things like areas and characters, not the Pokémon levels. Seeing Kanto Pokémon in Kanto is fine, but keeping them at the low levels they were in the Kanto games just makes things worse from a gameplay perspective. In comparison, I think Unova did this right by having the Pokémon/lines in the post-game areas in B2/W2 reflect the Pokémon that could be found there in B/W, but at much higher levels in order to match the level curve. Basically, good gameplay and good worldbuilding at the same time. I can sort of forgive G/S/C for failing at this, but it was unacceptable that it was kept in HG/SS and that is one of the many reasons as for why I think HG/SS were bad games.

saw someone talking shit about the dancing guys who block your way.............those dudes are awesome and i love them. end of story.

I agree. They are one of my favorite roadblocks in the whole series because of how creative and silly they are.

This kind of scenario is why level scaling would actually work pretty well in a game like Pokemon (expecially if they opt to keep the overworld pokemon & pseudo-openworld settings).

I also think that level scaling could work in Pokémon, but there is one thing that I am worried about. How exactly would the levels be scaled?
Would it go after the Pokémon in your party? If so, what would happen when you have one Pokémon at level 60 and the rest at levels 10-15? What would the levels of the opponents be in that case?
And if the system doesn't follow the party levels, but rather your progress in the game, would there be some way to "reset" the levels and the scaling? Because that is something I would like to see. When I train new teams after having beaten the game, I usually train them by battling Pokémon at the same levels as they are at, so having the option to fight low-leveled Pokémon no matter where I am in the game would be great, although not necessarily a must.

In the end, I think level scaling can work in Pokémon if it is done right, but I'm not sure if it is what I want to see in the series.

 

[CPU]

This kind of scenario is why level scaling would actually work pretty well in a game like Pokemon (expecially if they opt to keep the overworld pokemon & pseudo-openworld settings).

I think Sword and Shield were a inch away from pulling this right to be fair... having mostly weak pokemon in the grass but with clear "strong" pokemon that you would avoid.
Arceus also does something similar, often putting packs of unevolved pokemon that are of the expected player level, but guarded by their evolved version, somethimes alpha, who is instead way higher level.

However, SwSh kinda drops the ball with the fact non-wild area Pokemon don't level scale.
I'm not exactly sure why GF doesn't want to use level scaling everywhere, could have made sense in past with random encounters, but with avoidable visible encounters (potentially even showing the actual enemy level in the UI) I think they could freely use the Arceus system (have both low and high level pokemon in all areas) and give a layer of extra depth to any route, even the earlier ones.

I mean, we know why

they already have enough issues finishing the games as it is, and "route realism" is really the last of their problems, but still, since they pulled it pretty well in Arceus and were a inch away from doing it right in the Wild Area in SwSh, one can hope

I don't like the idea of level scaling, honestly. I can't say 100% if it's an immersion issue or something else, but the idea of it just feels... off to me. Unpopular opinion? Maybe, but hey, it's the right thread for that. It was okay in the base game in SwSh because it only affected the Wild Area, a place that, aside from a few times when you had to cross it to get to the different sections of the map, was optional. For how they implemented the DLC, it was a good inclusion there, as well. Still haven't gotten to post-game in Legends, do all the wild Pokémon become higher leveled once you get there in that game? EDIT: obviously if there's no level-scaling, you do run into weird worldbuilding issues, where anyone not from the "early" map areas would be hard-pressed to become a trainer, given the high levels of their local fauna.

I disagree with Suspicious Derivative's take on linear vs explorative gameplay in Pokémon (I love how mid-game Gen 1and Gen 2 can be approached from multiple directions), but having a more linear map/story makes designing the level curve a lot easier. That said, if you're going to not level-scale, I feel like it's important to have large areas of the map to explore after becoming the Champion where you can train and fight higher-leveled opponents. Where Johto fell flat, IMO, was that, despite having a new region to explore, the wild Pokémon and opposing trainers never exceeded level 50 (except, IIRC, for Blue, at least in Gen 2). I don't mind the wild levels in Kanto, but Mt. Silver's Pokémon are a pretty big let-down for an area supposedly filled with "frightening" wilds. It makes training for Red very difficult and tedious. At least HGSS added rematches, but aside from those with the Elite Four, the hoops you had to jump through to do most of them made them not worth it.

Kinda got sidetracked there, but I liked the way DPPt and BW did it, by giving you a new, sizeable chunk of the map to explore, filled with both wild Pokémon and trainers that had levels to provide both a challenge and adequate experience.

 

[Ironmage]

Where I run into a problem with level-scaling is with NPC opponents. It would still be immersion-breaking to have a trainer start from e.g. Sunnyshore and need to travel the entire length of the region to have a reasonable battle with their first gym leader, but level scaling becomes harder to handle when it comes to trainers. A properly scaling trainer NPC would need to be able to increase the number of mons used, evolve existing mons, and improve their held items while also determining which level-up moves are worth learning. XY attempted to scale trainers in the Battle Chateau, and it went badly. I'm not convinced a good scaling algorithm is possible, and making several versions of every trainer depending on when they're fought doesn't seem like the best use of time.

 

[CPU]

Where I run into a problem with level-scaling is with NPC opponents. It would still be immersion-breaking to have a trainer start from e.g. Sunnyshore and need to travel the entire length of the region to have a reasonable battle with their first gym leader, but level scaling becomes harder to handle when it comes to trainers. A properly scaling trainer NPC would need to be able to increase the number of mons used, evolve existing mons, and improve their held items while also determining which level-up moves are worth learning. XY attempted to scale trainers in the Battle Chateau, and it went badly. I'm not convinced a good scaling algorithm is possible, and making several versions of every trainer depending on when they're fought doesn't seem like the best use of time.

Games with the Vs. Seeker (and Johto's phone rematches) do have multiple teams for the trainers that can be rematched, but I don't think any of them ever add any Pokémon, and it's never been every trainer in an entire region (even with the Vs. Seeker, you couldn't use it in caves, for example). It's doable, but probably not to the level people who want level scaling would want.

 

[Kurona]

Which is why I heavily disagree with this. Not only are areas like Twist Mountain and Victory Road filled with sidetracks for you to explore, but the way HMs are done explicitly encourages you to backtrack and find areas like the P2 Lab, Cobalion's cave, etc. Older Pokemon games only look non-linear when you backtrack armed with all the HMs. The games themselves are still mostly linear. Basically BW gives you (or at least aims to give you) the choice between exploration and progression as you see fit.

Agree with your post in general (I love how Gen 5 does HMs) but you are actually responding to a different point here; when they say non-linear they don't mean route design, they mean how you can do things out of order. Like how for instance once you beat Morty in GSC/HGSS you can go the Lake of Rage and Pryce right away even though the actual badge order is Chuck and Jasmine, or how in the Kanto games you can skip Surge entirely until you need his badge to enter Victory Road and once you get out of Rock Tunnel basically everything from Celadon Hideout to Blaine can be done in any order you want (broadly, anyway; the Team Rocket quests still have an order to them and you need surf for Blaine specifically). The person you're replying to is correct that this stopped existing entirely beginning with BW, though in the case of BW and BW2 I respect it because it's for the sake of their story

 

[Ema Skye]

The majority of the cross-gen evos in DP, for one. Beyond that, the only other example that isn’t a legendary (or at least legendary-tier like the Ultra Beasts) is Beldum in RSE, which is quasi-excusable since it’s A) a pseudo-legend, and B) the only example in those games. I think GF realized what a dumb idea it was by DP, so much so that they went out of their way to rectify it in Platinum.

BW2 was also brutal for this, which is obnoxious because it wasn't an issue in BW1.

Heatmor, Durant, Cryogonal, Cubchoo, Archen, Tirtouga, Munna, Stunfisk and Palpitoad were all post-game encounters despite being normal Unova Dex mons (and you actually see them get used in the main game). The older mons effected by this were nearly as many: Slakoth, Corphish, Jigglypuff, Yanma, Tropius, Carnivine, Croagunk and Larvitar. And the genies were locked to the Dream Radar game so you couldn't get them at all (and can't get them once the 3DS eShop closes down).

 

[Pikachu315111]

This kind of scenario is why level scaling would actually work pretty well in a game like Pokemon (expecially if they opt to keep the overworld pokemon & pseudo-openworld settings).

(...)

I'm not exactly sure why GF doesn't want to use level scaling everywhere, could have made sense in past with random encounters, but with avoidable visible encounters (potentially even showing the actual enemy level in the UI) I think they could freely use the Arceus system (have both low and high level pokemon in all areas) and give a layer of extra depth to any route, even the earlier ones.

How would the level-scaling be done? Like does it go by Level of Pokemon in your party or by the amount of Badges you have?

One reason I see them not wanting to do this would be, if for some reason, a player decides they want to train up they're lower level Pokemon so makes up an entire party of them. If the game has level scaled based on amount of progress, then everywhere would have high leveled Pokemon and there would be nowhere to really use these Pokemon.

Let's change the scenario to the other option, level of Pokemon in party. There's two options I see with this one: Highest level and average. If they go by highest level, well that'll certainly solve the above problem, but that now creates a problem throughout the game where you gotta make sure not one of your Pokemon gets too overleveled otherwise if that Pokemon faints the rest of your party may not be able to handle the battle you're in (may result you in boxing strong mon until your other Pokemon are as strong as it, and remember some Pokemon level up faster than others). If they go by average, well you can really mess with it by having a very low level and very high level and make the resulting opponents somewhere in the middle meaning your high level can walk right through them (meanwhile your low level can't do anything but just be an experience farmer).

But, as you mentioned, L:A did present a possible real-ish solution of having essentially family/colony units. Semi-combining it with my idea, on the immediate route there's the low level mons that you're probably expected to catch to fill out your dex at the very least. But, if you explore a bit deeper you'll not only find higher level members (possibly even some evolved to their mid-stage if they're a 3-stage) but eventually come across the "patriarch/matriarch/guardian/boss" of them which level is around if not higher than the Pokemon you're expected to have on you by your amount of progression. Would give more of a sense for exploration later on in the game for players who just want to skip the grind of leveling the lower forms (and side-stepping the ones which have a non-level evolution requirement) and just catch the final form you want to use. But they're going to need to make sure the player can't accidentally agro the boss, like the boss needs to essentially be in a lair area so that the player knows if they enter into there they're in danger if not ready.

I think BW was the first step towards removing HMs in later games, but IMO I like the way it reimagined them as exploration and backtracking tools, rather than cure-alls for arbitrary roadblocks (remember the Cut trees outside Team Galactic's Eterna base?)

And if they had just made it so your Pokemon didn't need to learn the HM to use it that would have been the perfect use for HMs (like once you have the HM and there's a Pokemon that can use it in the party, interacting with the obstacle will just ask if you want the Pokemon to use the HM. Heck, maybe they could even make it so some Pokemon can only use the HM that way but are unable to use it for battling purposes). It's a reason why I'm sort of sad seeing HMs gone, or moves that can be used outside of battle in general. So many moves I can see potential making a obstacle which they can get rid of for additional exploration/rewards. Also the HMs replacements they've had haven't been bad per se but many have felt under utilized.

PokeRides were pretty much given to you at the exact moment you needed them but sadly usually only that area was what you needed the PokeRide for so for a few it might as well not have existed (thinking mainly of Mudsdale and Sharpedo; though Sharpedo was at least a faster water transportation).

Let's Go just replaced HMs with Techniques only your Partner could use which I think for that game where you always have your Partner Pokemon is a nice solution though once again it's mostly just a roadblock solver with only a handful of places to backtrack to.

Finally SwSh didn't even bother, I thought it was cool we were gonna be using the bike as your HM expy but turns out there's just no obstacles and the only upgrade is the Water Bike (which had some places you could backtrack to get some extra goodies which was nice, though I feel that was only the case cause you got the Water Bike late in the game).

I would like to see either HMs or a direct parallel to them (like exploration items) return to be used for exploration/backtracking. Like give the player the option of just following the main path if they don't want to, BUT if they do make the exploration interesting by needing this move/item that interacts with the environment in a unique way.

Which is why I heavily disagree with this. Not only are areas like Twist Mountain and Victory Road filled with sidetracks for you to explore, but the way HMs are done explicitly encourages you to backtrack and find areas like the P2 Lab, Cobalion's cave, etc. Older Pokemon games only look non-linear when you backtrack armed with all the HMs. The games themselves are still mostly linear. Basically BW gives you (or at least aims to give you) the choice between exploration and progression as you see fit.

I HATE that criticism. "BW is linear". Yeah, maybe if you're skipping EVERYTHING additional on the route its linear. But most routes and locations had plenty of room for exploration if you decided to go look around.

Hey, I got a secret. You know the older maps you probably are comparing the Unova map to? You're seeing a web of routes and cities? IT'S ALL LIES! There is only ONE intended path, they designed the Pokemon and Trainer levels based on said path, you're expected to battle the Gym Leaders in a specific order. "Oh, but in Gen # you can actually skip/ignore this GL and save them for later"! Well right there you just mentioned it was an exception to the rule. If you're describing something as a "skip" or "ignore" or "having to go back later" then it's not really an intended optional choice but more of an oversight because they didn't think players would do that (because in their thinking there's no reason for them to). We've never had a Pokemon game that wasn't goal oriented, we've never had a game that dropped us in the middle of a region and said "okay tackle the Gym Leaders in any order you want".

Anything that wasn't straight forward was either because the plot forces you on a side road or you decided to go exploring. This is also no taking into account some locations aren't straight forward but have plenty of twists and turns and different floors levels (most notably in caves and forests).

What you see on the map isn't reflective of what is or isn't linear in the game, it's just showing you where you're generally are in the region. All BW did was just cut the BS and showed you the goal markers that other games hid with a web that gave an illusion of multiple paths that can be taken. Even L:A is goal-oriented and not truly open world, you just have very big areas to explore.

I don't remember how it was when I played G/S/C, but when I played HG/SS, my situation was similar to yours.

Those were my in-game teams:
SoulSilver: :Farfetch:
HeartGold:

On SS, I had four Johto Pokémon. One was the starter while another evolves from a Kanto Pokémon. The remaining two were regular Johto Pokémon.
On HG, I had two Johto Pokémon. One was the starter, the other was a regular. Then I also had a Sinnoh Pokémon which evolves from a Johto Pokémon.

Which means that only half of my final teams consisted of Johto Pokémon.

So yeah. Johto definitely has availability issues.

Well, were you specifically aiming for an entire Gen II team? If not, then honestly I think having a team of half Johto & half Kanto is pretty representative of the Gen II games. Gen II treated its new Pokemon as more of an expansion upon the original 151, not as something to completely replace them. Sure you could have a Gen II only team and still be fine, but at the same time maybe you come across a Gen I Pokemon you hadn't really used before, this gives you a pretty good opportunity to use it even if you replace it down the line.

 

[pika pal]

Let's change the scenario to the other option, level of Pokemon in party. There's two options I see with this one: Highest level and average. If they go by highest level, well that'll certainly solve the above problem, but that now creates a problem throughout the game where you gotta make sure not one of your Pokemon gets too overleveled otherwise if that Pokemon faints the rest of your party may not be able to handle the battle you're in (may result you in boxing strong mon until your other Pokemon are as strong as it, and remember some Pokemon level up faster than others). If they go by average, well you can really mess with it by having a very low level and very high level and make the resulting opponents somewhere in the middle meaning your high level can walk right through them (meanwhile your low level can't do anything but just be an experience farmer).

With the box system they've used from LGPE onward, where you can swap mons anytime on the Overworld and just have a team of 6 for Battle specifically, this doesn't seem quite as unreasonable to me. The worst it would need is a menu before major battles (diegetic or otherwise) to swap your big mons back in if you come up to a boss without knowing in advance, something I've seen in RPGs like Xenoblade Chronicles for example.

On the matter of the levels, I agree they've always felt like a gameplay element, not something that is to be taken at face value as a component of the world or worldbuilding. In other forms of Pokemon media, "Level" is at most vaguely alluded to, but more often than not a Pokemon's strength or threat is shown by how dangerous it is in battle rather than a number, or how in sync it is with its trainer if it's an owned Pokemon. Levels are a way to quickly communicate and quantify how strong you have made a Pokemon, but other major factors like Nature, IVs, and EVs are never meant to be visible (or at least obvious) while influencing a Pokemon in a significant way as well, because the games have a very simple battle system and interface that needs that short hand in lieu of more complex systems like positioning, status, multi-party-member combinations, equipment, larger ability pools, etc.

You know what the most likely explanation for the Kanto Level curve in Gen 2 is? There's the famous story that GF initially ran out of cart space before finishing Johto's content, then Iwata helped work his coding magic to compress it to the point they could fit Kanto in. I personally think if Johto was having that much trouble initially, they literally did just drop Kanto in, encounter tables and all, with minor tweaks as needed to fit into system changes or mechanics like held items or the Day-Night cycle, then dropped a couple wild Pokemon from the Johto additions in there. The Level curves were borderline recycled from RBY because of this rather than a conscious "let's make things the same level as Red happened to run into them" design decision, while new Pokemon added were just given those levels for congruence, with the exception of things that flat out had no basis in Gen 1 layouts like the Vermillion City Snorlax and the stray Rocket Grunt.

Just to close this out with an unpopular opinion (that I might elaborate on as discussion continues), Gen 2 Johto/Kanto is the 2nd worst designed Region in the Pokemon franchise, only losing out to Galar which I am heavily biased against anyway and thus may not be able to say is objectively worse at the drop of a hat. HG/SS are commendable for updating the presentation value and adding a good deal of content, but simultaneously fumble as remakes because they didn't not fix several major issues seemingly for the sake of "authenticity" to the originals

 

[ScraftyIsTheBest]

BW2 was also brutal for this, which is obnoxious because it wasn't an issue in BW1.

Heatmor, Durant, Cryogonal, Cubchoo, Archen, Tirtouga, Munna, Stunfisk and Palpitoad were all post-game encounters despite being normal Unova Dex mons (and you actually see them get used in the main game). The older mons effected by this were nearly as many: Slakoth, Corphish, Jigglypuff, Yanma, Tropius, Carnivine, Croagunk and Larvitar. And the genies were locked to the Dream Radar game so you couldn't get them at all (and can't get them once the 3DS eShop closes down).

Cubchoo actually can be found before the post-game, but unlike in BW1 it is pretty much locked strictly to Winter since you don't have Twist Mountain to find it in before the E4. It's on Route 7 like it was beforehand so it can be obtained around Skyla, but if it's not Winter in-game you're not gonna see it at all. It's still a mid-game mon like before but it's hard-locked to a specific season.

BW2 does additionally have an issue where in addition to some Unova mons being post-game only, some of them can only be found evolved. Zebstrika for instance is only obtainable in the wild as a readily evolved Zebstrika itself, Blitzle isn't anywhere to be seen in the wild, so you need to breed to get Blitzle. And breeding itself is post-game so until then if you're using Zebstrika, you're catching it fully evolved off the bat and will never have the luxury of raising one from a Blitzle. You bring up Palpitoad in addition which is also a similar case: its base form is Tympole, and it was available fairly early in BW1, but in BW2 it can only be obtained in the wild as a Palpitoad and then possibly evolved to Seismitoad from there. There is also Vanilluxe, who is found much later in BW2 than it was in BW1 and thus the lowest obtainable stage in the wild is Vanillish. Incidentally, Golurk is also a case like Zebstrika where the fully evolved stage is the only one obtainable and Golett is completely absent in the wild. Hydreigon is also a similar case incidentally enough: the lowest stage you can obtain in the wild in BW2 of this line is Zweilous, and Deino needs to be bred in order to be obtained as Deino, and BW2 is thus far the only case where the generation's pseudo-legendary cannot be obtained in its unevolved stage. That's around a solid five Unova lines who can only be found in their evolved states in BW2. I do not know if GSC did this with any Kanto mons, but BW2 definitely had this weird situation with some of the Gen 5 mons themselves.

 

[Mova]

i know cyllene didn't learn shit from the fugitive arc but being disrespectful after you get 9 stars is too much

 

[Yung Dramps]

I'm a bit late on this but the whole early game Pokemon selection immersion debate is another reason why I love Melemele Island as an intro. It too has several unique and rather exotic species that only inhabit it like the Smeargle, Salamence, Jynx and Raichu families, and in conjunction with some fun special strong mon encounters like the famous Salamence it makes it feel like just as believable and varied of an ecosystem as any of other 3 islands.

 

[Siggu]

I HATE that criticism. "BW is linear".

Okay, so, two things:

1) Why do you consider that a criticism?

2) BW is very linear, and Unova was the first region made with linearity in mind (Platinum was the first hard-linear game but Diamond and Pearl had permutations on the order that you could choose). You can only go through locations in a specific order, at best getting the ocassional sidepath that only gives you extra items or a shortcut, but at the end of the day there is only one path to follow.

 

[pika pal]

1) Why do you consider that [the games are called linear] a criticism?

I want to chime in and say I do not think this is a criticism myself, but I do often see it applied as one and do in that scenario find it irritating, on the grounds that it usually tends to be stated and left at that as if it's simply an accepted fact or criteria.

Ignoring that "linear" vs "non-linear" can differ in specifics (does this refer to the path taken to reach individual objectives, the the order the objectives can/must be done in, difference of objectives in the first place, the necessity or requisites to finish the main story?), I also don't think simply saying a game is better because it is non-linear forwards the conversation or is correct. Perhaps individual players prefer one or the other, but you need a defined metric for both what non-linearity is and what the criteria for a good game is that it satisfies better than a linear game.

For example, if your criteria for a good game is one that can be replayed while having a varied but still fulfilling experience from what you did on a previous playthrough (such as going for a different temple order in a Zelda game), then a non-linear game would fulfill that standard more effectively. On the other hand, if the criteria is simply for a player to have a smooth progression curve and a well-paced experience, non-linearity can hinder that criteria unless you have very effective difficulty scaling/modulation to avoid plateauing the challenge for a while (see Johto's infamous mid-game level curve).

This is why I don't like to summarize my grievances with later Pokemon campaigns as them being linear, but rather them being barren. All things considered, Gens 3-5 are my favorites, but they also do keep your progression on one path with at most the very rare exception of skipping a Gym with an unnecessary HM until later. That said, I find these regions have much better setpieces, side-diversions along the way, more interesting world building to see along that one path, and a much more engaging difficulty curve for the battles they take you through and thus design around a sequence of. Comparatively for 6-8, I find these games more drab hallways to visit because they feel very bare for charm or personality in the details or character (or in SM's case, have it but bog it down with missing QoL that most RPGs have had for 15+ years).

tl;dr If you want to discuss something like what is a better Pokemon game or what is ideal game design direction, elaboration is a major difference between conversation and condescension

 

[Hugin]

This probably won't be popular:
I think leveling in general, or at least levels affecting your stats, needs to go away. Learning new moves and evolving are both good measures of progress, and some sort of EV/Grit/whatever mechanic can allow training individual stats further, but actual "lvl 30 Wartortle one-shots lvl 20 Ivysaur with Body Slam" should not be a thing going forwards.

Let's look at what increasing your level actually does:
Let you to fight higher level pokemon
Let you ignore type matchups to just overpower opponents
Act as a gauge for learning moves/evolving
Give the satisfaction of "make number go up"

Now the issues with levels:
Can't do non-linear regions (breaks the level curve, see Johto)
Can't allow players to access dangerous mons early (they could get lucky and catch/faint it to break everything)
Players can have wildly divergent power at various key moments
Discourages large teams/swapping out for new members/trying new mons
Makes going back to areas you missed boring (shout out to everyone who didn't bring Fly to the E4, became Champion, then had to walk through a route of lvl 3 derps to make it to a PC)
Allows poor strategy to work (one mon with a type disadvantage, no set-up moves, and 10 extra levels can sweep almost any gym)

Levels are a RPG staple, key to the franchise, and a millstone around Pokemon's neck. I'm sure they'll still be here in Gen IX, but at some point GF really needs to reconsider whether they actually make things better.

 

[Bug Maniac Aydon]

This probably won't be popular:
I think leveling in general, or at least levels affecting your stats, needs to go away. Learning new moves and evolving are both good measures of progress, and some sort of EV/Grit/whatever mechanic can allow training individual stats further, but actual "lvl 30 Wartortle one-shots lvl 20 Ivysaur with Body Slam" should not be a thing going forwards.

Let's look at what increasing your level actually does:
Let you to fight higher level pokemon
Let you ignore type matchups to just overpower opponents
Act as a gauge for learning moves/evolving
Give the satisfaction of "make number go up"

Now the issues with levels:
Can't do non-linear regions (breaks the level curve, see Johto)
Can't allow players to access dangerous mons early (they could get lucky and catch/faint it to break everything)
Players can have wildly divergent power at various key moments
Discourages large teams/swapping out for new members/trying new mons
Makes going back to areas you missed boring (shout out to everyone who didn't bring Fly to the E4, became Champion, then had to walk through a route of lvl 3 derps to make it to a PC)
Allows poor strategy to work (one mon with a type disadvantage, no set-up moves, and 10 extra levels can sweep almost any gym)

Levels are a RPG staple, key to the franchise, and a millstone around Pokemon's neck. I'm sure they'll still be here in Gen IX, but at some point GF really needs to reconsider whether they actually make things better.

Wouldn't this, to an extent, create an opposite effect? All you would need to do to cheese a gym is catch 6 pokemon that have a good matchup with it. You don't need to really put any effort into them if their moves are just enough to beat them over.

i'm probably just based idfk

 

[Worldie]

Wouldn't this, to an extent, create an opposite effect? All you would need to do to cheese a gym is catch 6 pokemon that have a good matchup with it. You don't need to really put any effort into them if their moves are just enough to beat them over.

I mean, isn't it *exactly* what you do now, except it's usually a single pokemon with the correct stab or type coverage instead?


(Daily reminder that outside of self-imposed challenges, pretty much any pokemon game can be beaten by just running over everything with the starter or a early game pokemon with wide coverage)

 

[Siggu]

Let's look at what increasing your level actually does:
Let you to fight higher level pokemon
Let you ignore type matchups to just overpower opponents
Act as a gauge for learning moves/evolving
Give the satisfaction of "make number go up"

It also gives the feeling of progression, that you're improving through the journey.

Now the issues with levels:
Can't do non-linear regions (breaks the level curve, see Johto)
Can't allow players to access dangerous mons early (they could get lucky and catch/faint it to break everything)
Players can have wildly divergent power at various key moments
Discourages large teams/swapping out for new members/trying new mons
Makes going back to areas you missed boring (shout out to everyone who didn't bring Fly to the E4, became Champion, then had to walk through a route of lvl 3 derps to make it to a PC)
Allows poor strategy to work (one mon with a type disadvantage, no set-up moves, and 10 extra levels can sweep almost any gym)

The first three are not an issue.
The fourth one is actually encouraged by Box Link and forced Exp. Share.
The fifth one will always be boring.
And the last one... where's the problem in that? If they want to cheese their way through, let them.

 

[QuentinQuonce]

It also gives the feeling of progression, that you're improving through the journey.

It also gives you a hell of a target to strive toward. The first time I battled my friend, via link cable, I legitimately thought I was unbeatable... with my level 24 Quilava that steamrollered everything in-game (ah, youthful stupidity).

Then my friend sent out his level 53 Typhlosion.

From then on, all I could think about was getting tough enough to battle him on an even footing.

 

[AquaticPanic]

This probably won't be popular:
I think leveling in general, or at least levels affecting your stats, needs to go away. Learning new moves and evolving are both good measures of progress, and some sort of EV/Grit/whatever mechanic can allow training individual stats further, but actual "lvl 30 Wartortle one-shots lvl 20 Ivysaur with Body Slam" should not be a thing going forwards.

Let's look at what increasing your level actually does:
Let you to fight higher level pokemon
Let you ignore type matchups to just overpower opponents
Act as a gauge for learning moves/evolving
Give the satisfaction of "make number go up"

Now the issues with levels:
Can't do non-linear regions (breaks the level curve, see Johto)
Can't allow players to access dangerous mons early (they could get lucky and catch/faint it to break everything)
Players can have wildly divergent power at various key moments
Discourages large teams/swapping out for new members/trying new mons
Makes going back to areas you missed boring (shout out to everyone who didn't bring Fly to the E4, became Champion, then had to walk through a route of lvl 3 derps to make it to a PC)
Allows poor strategy to work (one mon with a type disadvantage, no set-up moves, and 10 extra levels can sweep almost any gym)

Levels are a RPG staple, key to the franchise, and a millstone around Pokemon's neck. I'm sure they'll still be here in Gen IX, but at some point GF really needs to reconsider whether they actually make things better.

Legend's damage calc formula makes Levels matter way less in battle in regards to how much they influence damage. Its why you can get ganged up on by random wild mons that are 20 levels below you and still get beat up by them or why some of the Alpha battles are even possible to win without having to overlevel yourself.

So I'd say that the main issue you have with levels is already being resolved as overlevelling isn't as effective anymore.

 

[Nitro Indigo]

The only RPGs I can think of that don't have levelling are the original Digimon World and its remaquels (which cut out the middle man and have you grind stats directly)... and modern Paper Mario.