In general, I think I'm the opposite. "Kids JRPG" is probably my favourite genre for contemplating PvP in. I'm off to the side of the casual/competitive binary, I put a lot of time and thought into what I do (relative to a casual player), but I'm not optimizing for success. There isn't really a big market for that kind of player, so the in-between is about the closest a major game can get. Too casual, there's no depth and I can't find anything interesting. Too competitive, and things like gimmick builds or wildly distinct matchups get discouraged and I still can't find anything interesting.
-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Unpopular opinions
- Thread starter antemortem
- Start date
A timer should still exist on Showdown regardless (seriously every competitive game like ever has one) but that's apparently an unpopular opinion in its own right.
Not unless you owned a DSi and a very specific type of router you couldn't. The Gen 4 and 5 games may have technically had Wi-Fi but for most people it wasn't usable.
Another issue with Pokémon's official play is accessibility. In order to play the official competitive mode, you need to buy a Switch, multiple Switch games in order to be able to get all the Pokémon, a subscription for Nintendo Switch online, and travel money if you want to attend the actual tournaments, and that's all on top of the time investments in actually building the teams. Meanwhile, to play Pokémon on Showdown all you need is an internet connection, and potentially not even that if you go to your local library, and you can easily start playing and learning in no time.
I distinctly remember trying to connect to Wi-Fi for the Rotom event when I got Platinum in middle school and having issues. I got it to work eventually, but yeah I recall how the DS(i?) could only connect to specific router types.
Champions is the only logical endgame for TPC wanting to host a viable competitive scene for the games, because the accessibility is and always has been the the biggest problem with getting people to try it out, and the QoL has been essentially putting ointment on the bruises of a guy's broken leg for how much it addresses the core issue. Building the mon is not an aspect of the competition, the important point is that you have it to battle with.
Imagine if, to play a character in a Fighting game, you had to beat their Arcade Mode before being able to use them online. Now imagine having to do this every time you changed your team of 2-3 in a game like DBFZ or MvC. Or in a MOBA if you had to re-acquire a character to try a different set of perks/items on them between matches as opposed to just the in-round progression system.
Pokemon offers the ability to conveniently build a mon if you have it, but the ability to adjust them I don't think is remotely up to par with the amount of granularity and iterations VGC calls for at the highest levels, at least on the aspects that are not prominent during standard gameplay (EVs, IVs, natures). The Vitamin cap removal still leaves the vitamins themselves as a massive money or time sink because they're still priced extremely high as a consumable item vs Held items you can pass around, and EV training is a similarly time consuming endeavor even taking like 15-20 minutes for a session.
What it amounts to in my experience is Pokemon games have only mildly cut down on the AMOUNT of grinding, moreso streamlining it by putting several aspects into methods you can handle with a small number of farmable resources (i.e. Spam raids for EXP Candy and Sell-Trash items to buy Vitamins/Bottle Caps). The change ultimately amounts to your pursuit of a mon now requiring 30-60 minutes of farming money to build a random specimen rather than 40-80 minutes of breeding with a Perfect Ditto to hatch the IV'd specimen, but you still need to do a lot of those steps every time you want to try a new variation, whether it's building a new one or un-and-re-EVing your existing Pokemon.
Anyone arguing that Genning is unnecessary has to actually contend with the amount of work that goes into building a Pokemon WITH those QoL adjustments, which in my outsider opinion is "less but still excessive" and thus doesn't correct the core issue. The brand image of friendship/camaraderie with Pokemon is dampened by many of the best picks in a format being mons you'd have to trade in or raise after the campaign, so meshing casual flavor with the competitive scene is compromised at base as an argument against making it a slider or menu option pre-Champions.
For a game I think is much better designed around encouraging this sort of small-detail experimentation, the Mario + Rabbids games use a skill tree system where leveling up gives you additional points to invest and a significant element of strategy is picking synergistic comps and skills to complement them (EX: Rabbid Mario has the ability to move/group up enemies, so you might want characters who can hit large crowds with explosive moves). The game's solution to this is letting you RESET YOUR SKILL TREES at any point from the menu to reallocate your points. The knowledge aspect is for you to know/decide where you want your limited resources placed, rather than grinding the pace to a halt to acquire them again in a different configuration.
Imagine if, to play a character in a Fighting game, you had to beat their Arcade Mode before being able to use them online. Now imagine having to do this every time you changed your team of 2-3 in a game like DBFZ or MvC. Or in a MOBA if you had to re-acquire a character to try a different set of perks/items on them between matches as opposed to just the in-round progression system.
Pokemon offers the ability to conveniently build a mon if you have it, but the ability to adjust them I don't think is remotely up to par with the amount of granularity and iterations VGC calls for at the highest levels, at least on the aspects that are not prominent during standard gameplay (EVs, IVs, natures). The Vitamin cap removal still leaves the vitamins themselves as a massive money or time sink because they're still priced extremely high as a consumable item vs Held items you can pass around, and EV training is a similarly time consuming endeavor even taking like 15-20 minutes for a session.
What it amounts to in my experience is Pokemon games have only mildly cut down on the AMOUNT of grinding, moreso streamlining it by putting several aspects into methods you can handle with a small number of farmable resources (i.e. Spam raids for EXP Candy and Sell-Trash items to buy Vitamins/Bottle Caps). The change ultimately amounts to your pursuit of a mon now requiring 30-60 minutes of farming money to build a random specimen rather than 40-80 minutes of breeding with a Perfect Ditto to hatch the IV'd specimen, but you still need to do a lot of those steps every time you want to try a new variation, whether it's building a new one or un-and-re-EVing your existing Pokemon.
Anyone arguing that Genning is unnecessary has to actually contend with the amount of work that goes into building a Pokemon WITH those QoL adjustments, which in my outsider opinion is "less but still excessive" and thus doesn't correct the core issue. The brand image of friendship/camaraderie with Pokemon is dampened by many of the best picks in a format being mons you'd have to trade in or raise after the campaign, so meshing casual flavor with the competitive scene is compromised at base as an argument against making it a slider or menu option pre-Champions.
For a game I think is much better designed around encouraging this sort of small-detail experimentation, the Mario + Rabbids games use a skill tree system where leveling up gives you additional points to invest and a significant element of strategy is picking synergistic comps and skills to complement them (EX: Rabbid Mario has the ability to move/group up enemies, so you might want characters who can hit large crowds with explosive moves). The game's solution to this is letting you RESET YOUR SKILL TREES at any point from the menu to reallocate your points. The knowledge aspect is for you to know/decide where you want your limited resources placed, rather than grinding the pace to a halt to acquire them again in a different configuration.
I don't mind genning because it's not a real advantage at all.
And no, I don't buy the whole "testing time" thing because who the fuck isn't testing builds on Showdown anyway?
Also, the absolute money sink that is getting all that stuff legit is a real barrier and people shouldn't be locked behind it just to get to a couple events here and there. Most non-top players won't be going around the country, or even the world to be playing on those.
To twist the knife even further, online battles are pretty awful.
Seriously, VGC could've been so much more if they were actually willing to fix most of the messes in those games' presentation and rulesets. (Like making the timer a chess timer)
The fact that the solution is making a mobile game be the battle hub from now only showcases the dire state the games are in. Champions looks like a legit improvement on the system and that's kind of ridiculous when you think about it.
So yeah, genning is the least important issue here, no one really should care, and it'll be locked for a while because the Switch 2 isn't moddable yet anyway.
And no, I don't buy the whole "testing time" thing because who the fuck isn't testing builds on Showdown anyway?
Also, the absolute money sink that is getting all that stuff legit is a real barrier and people shouldn't be locked behind it just to get to a couple events here and there. Most non-top players won't be going around the country, or even the world to be playing on those.
To twist the knife even further, online battles are pretty awful.
Seriously, VGC could've been so much more if they were actually willing to fix most of the messes in those games' presentation and rulesets. (Like making the timer a chess timer)
The fact that the solution is making a mobile game be the battle hub from now only showcases the dire state the games are in. Champions looks like a legit improvement on the system and that's kind of ridiculous when you think about it.
So yeah, genning is the least important issue here, no one really should care, and it'll be locked for a while because the Switch 2 isn't moddable yet anyway.
Yeah, hot take, but "owning the games to play VGC and the console to play them on" shouldn't be viewed as some sort of accessibility barrier to VGC. Owning other games for mons, yes, though realistically it only affects people just getting into the scene. Owning the games you are competing on and the console to play them on? No, just no. It's like saying getting into competitive SF6 is behind too much of a barrier, that barrier being owning SF6.
You don't need one game. You need AT LEAST 2 of the most current release because of things like multiple copies of the starter or alt forms of Urshifu, as well as so you can reset one game and rush to the end to re-capture Xerneas because you need to run a different set on it and your current one doesn't work for the new set. Beyond that you are likely going to need a significant number of older games for practicality reasons(no one is using the Galarian Slowpoke from ZA, for example, you're getting it in SwSh or in SV's DLC). And you're paying for online. All to use a format that the games do not teach you how to play at all.
Why does multiplayer exist? Nintendo clearly doesn't want anyone to play it.
Verlisify is right about some stuff, he's also a great comedian
Last edited:
Needing to own a console and a game is a barrier when compared to other competitive scenes that don't require such investment, it's part of why there has been tension between the console FGC and arcade FGC (the latter of which was historically more accessible). It's also a problem that VGC does not support past gen formats, so a VGC player would have to constantly buy the new games and systems to stay in the scene, while e.g. a Smash Melee player doesn't need to buy a Switch and Smash Ultimate to continue competing in tournaments.
This is just factually wrong. You can do the same with just one copy of the games and Home because you can just make an alt account on your Switch and transfer over mons from your alt to your main. You can argue there's still an accessibility issue there and it doesn't count version exclusives, but you do not need 2 games just to get multiple copies of legends.
In Gens 6 and 7 yeah, but nowadays it’s pretty easy to respec your Pokémon (with a few annoying exceptions like getting 0IVs, which obviously they should do something about), so is that really a matter of needing a second Xerneas, or just wanting one for a bit of convenience?
You do need 2 copies or a VERY generous friend/trade offer for Version exclusive Legendaries (see Violet owners that want Raging Bolt for example) at minimum, so better hope it's not a gen where distinct sets are both viable.
Pokemon's nature as a monster game means EACH player needs a copy of the game and access to a console to play it on. The barrier to playing a Fighting Game at a tournament like EVO is a single copy and set up minimum for each pair of players to participate on, whereas Pokemon requires one set per player since even if it's played on Provided systems, you still need each person to have their own copy to provide the Pokemon from.
On paper this isn't that big of a distinction since any pro player will want a copy of a game to practice on, but Pokemon has its multiple-game issue for full roster access and its minute-to-minute gameplay is all menu based and thus less active-execution based to need practice on a system, so you don't even have edge cases like being able to borrow a set up to practice on like the Smash Bros scene at my University.
All of the above makes Champions something that, frankly, is nearly a decade-and-a-half overdue for Pokemon VGC if it's meant to be an official and publicized facet of the franchise rather than being a niche grassroots thing that's allowed but not really supported.
Fighting games also don't require you to have access to older games to play the meta because each new entry is a completely bespoke experience. Gen 9 VGC eventually opened up to allow Gen 8 transfers and that necessitates access to SWSH and its DLC because Urshifu and Calyrex are pay to win staples in Doubles. Either you have to know someone to get those or buy the games + DLCs themselves, and both forms of Urshifu and Calyrex are mutually exclusive so have fun playing the DLCs twice to get all four.
Trying to get into VGC legitimately is a huge headache.
Trying to get into VGC legitimately is a huge headache.
While I agree with your overall point that they shouldn’t require previous games, I can’t resist a good uhm acktually so:
Technically all you would need is Sword or Shield, plus the DLC, and Scarlet or Violet, plus the DLC — and only one playthrough each. Why?
Sword’s DLC will give you one Kubfu and thus one Urshifu form. You can then get the other form from the SV DLC, as Kubfu is one of the Snacksworth Legendaries.
The SV DLC also gives you both of Calyrex’s steeds, so those don’t even require a Gen 8 game at all (granted, it does require you to be able to do a group quest with someone for the second horse, but if you have online, which if you’re doing competitive you most likely do, that should be a relatively trivial barrier to scale).
Calyrex itself does require Gen 8, which sucks, but having two separate Calyrex is a bit like what I mentioned in my post about Xerneas earlier — you don’t really need two separate Calyrex, because you can just respec, and you can’t have both Calyrex fusions at the same time anyway, so a second Calyrex likely wouldn’t even be getting used most of the time unless you were very frequently switching between them.
All the acquisition points are correct, but the Calyrex thing does highlight my issue with having to put so much effort into re-specing a Mon you already trained because you had points but not in the right stats for this season's build.
Also technically, the catch "acktualy" should be noted is only true as of Gen 9. You would have needed multiple playthroughs or multiple games if you wanted both options in Gen 8 where the Legendaries debuted and were very much relevant as they are in SV formats
Calyrex is maybe the worst example for being able to respec considering both its forms would like zero IVs in a stat that would ruin the other.
I wonder if this would have been better if the "species" of the Rider had been the Horse instead of Calyrex, which would minimize re-spec needs (since in every relevant aspect, Calyrex-Rider is just said Steed's playstyle with more stats and As One) and actually fit reasonably lorewise (since the "strength" is the steed but the intelligence and command is Calyrex) not unlike Tatsugiri and Dondozo (albeit Legend privilege being 1 mon instead of 2 in battle).
Species clause would be of little concern given they stack the Psychic weakesses and the two Horses/Riders have very different, arguably incompatible playstyles even in formats where they could be used together (Double Restricted doesn't really care for a Trick Room Sweeper plus a fast Glassy sweeper taking BOTH slots)
Yeah, but the post I quoted was about Gen 9 VGC so that’s what I was talking about. Like I said, I don’t actually disagree with the the identification of the overall problems here…
… indeed, like this one; I’m just trying to be specific about how many replays are “required” to get what you need, simply because I find the deduction of specific workloads kind of interesting.
Like, with Gen 8, if you want both Urshifu forms and want them both to be able to Gigantamax, it doesn’t actually require two full playthroughs of the game. It takes one full playthrough, then creating a second Switch profile on which to breeze through the main Isle of Armor quest until you clear the Tower of your choice (which is easy to do, especially if you go pick up Suicune from the Max Lair), and then moving Urshifu #2 over to save file #1 with HOME and feeding it Max Soup.
One could argue that DLC costs are a steep entry barrier for high-level comp in that game too.
Most Anti-Pokémon rants suck because they always use the same damn nostalgia merchant talking points:
-"It hasn't been good since *insert childhood game/gen here*"
-"All gimmicks except for Megas suck"
-"2D was peak, 3D is lifeless"
-"The games are too easy"
And the titles and thumbnails are almost always something like this:
Titles like "GameFreak Hates Pokémon" with nearly all of them using the same image of Pikachu crying from Mewtwo Strikes Back.
GameFreak didn't kill Pokémon, you just outgrew it and can't accept it.
To quote ImJustRob:
"You just keep pedaling that sentiment because you're angry that the games do not give you the same experience that they did when you were a child, the games are not growing up with you..."
The only good one I've seen is this one by ColinsWrld because he treats both the new and the old the same and actually criticizes stuff like gameplay rather than just Gens 3-5/7 Nostalgia Bait.
-"It hasn't been good since *insert childhood game/gen here*"
-"All gimmicks except for Megas suck"
-"2D was peak, 3D is lifeless"
-"The games are too easy"
And the titles and thumbnails are almost always something like this:
Titles like "GameFreak Hates Pokémon" with nearly all of them using the same image of Pikachu crying from Mewtwo Strikes Back.
GameFreak didn't kill Pokémon, you just outgrew it and can't accept it.
To quote ImJustRob:
"You just keep pedaling that sentiment because you're angry that the games do not give you the same experience that they did when you were a child, the games are not growing up with you..."
The only good one I've seen is this one by ColinsWrld because he treats both the new and the old the same and actually criticizes stuff like gameplay rather than just Gens 3-5/7 Nostalgia Bait.
Last edited:
Yeah - the rant community does feel like it regurgitates the same 2-3 talking points about Pokemon games without saying much of anything at all. They simultaneously complain about the games being the same while talking about how the "old games were better" with vague af talking points, usually mentioning that the new games "have no love poored into them" (whatever that means), graphics (which is fair but feels cherry-picked and I might get into that later), or how "Sword and Shield represents some embarrassment in gaming" without fucking elaborating on what that embarassment is.
I think a recent trend I hate in particular is bringing political concepts or talking points into the discussion - which most discussion videos, even ones that aren't even criticizing Pokemon - do. No, we do not need to have a discussion on the "complexities" of capitalism or whatever to know that a game has to have a fucking deadline & set budget, or talk about how the evil Pokemon Company's corporate greed is being fueled by us because "they know we will buy shit" or whatever the fuck people bring up in these conversations. I play Pokemon to ESCAPE all this political bullshit. Even then, I think some of discussion of politics have valid places they can be discussed in - on things like Character customization options or Legends Arceus's story (selectively, I know there are a lot of grifters out there who will use story discussions to air out their personal grievances lol) - or even real life drama that the Pokemon company is getting into like the Palworld lawsuit. In the qualitiy department though, I think its just all dragged out and tired, and doesn't even fucking make sense when you think about it for 2 seconds because the "golden age" of Pokemon (2008 - 2012) was also dominated by yearly releases as well.
The way some of these guys play the games also rubs me the wrong way - I think Imported Cheese did a ZA playthrough on his channel and the way he was acting and talking while playing the game did give me the vibe he went into it expecting a bad time. I suppose that's fine - but it leaves me feeling more like these guys are grifting to appeal to their audience rather than actually having such strong feelings towards the game. Maybe its part of the appeal, but its been getting annoying for me lately compared to my teenage years.
Graphics are a fair criticism for the games, but I also feel like they are focused on way too much in most discussions. I see a lot of post on soical media talking about Pokemon being bad by just showing a screenshot of Scarlet and Violet or something with some caption like "PS2 graphics in 2025" and the post gets thousands of likes / upvotes. Again, its a fair complaint, but I feel like these complains are basically telling the Pokemon Company "we just want you to spend an additional 10 million and 2 years making Ultra HD Pokemon game with realistic grass textures, ray-tracing, etc. and we won't complain anymore". I think there are areas Pokemon can improve its visuals in - but I also probably would just focus more on those resources on other areas. Not sure if this is a hot take.
I'm speaking from a pretty biased perspective - I really love the Pokemon world, characters, games, etc. and its impact on whole world since it feels like a universal language. That said, I think there are better ways to criticize the games. Talk about mechanics, like how TMs are made in SV or something. Talk about how the latest games let you get a full team of 6 before gym 1 and why its bad. Talk about how the ZA sidequest are boring, or how the battle system in ZA is a bit finicky. I don't neccisiarly agree with what I'm saying above here, but I feel there's a lot more substance to these points than the ones I typically hear.
This describes so many fandoms these days. Nothing is fucking fun to talk about anymore outside of the occasional sane havens like this place because people can’t read for shit, can’t critique for shit, and half of ‘em can’t even form their own opinions about shit; they just outsource that task to their favorite professionally furious YouTuber.
There’s way too many converging social factors contributing to all of this to get into for a Smogon post, but fundamentally we live in a world where it’s easier than ever for indolent nerds who are all stuck in a state of arrested development to rally together over their shared feelings of entitlement and their masturbatory dead-end ideas and then amplify their histrionics over the loudspeaker that is the Internet.
I’ve got a relatively small social circle, but within that circle there’s plenty of cases where I don’t feel the same way about something that someone else does, and it’s fine. Lord knows I don’t agree with my dad about most of our shared interests. I don’t need people to like the things I like, I just need them to not be so damn insufferable and childish about how they express their dislike.
“Game Freak hates Pokémon and they hate you for liking it.” Jesus wept. Do they hear themselves?
The chronically online gamer habit I probably hate the most (well, aside from the rampant bigotry and sexism) is co-opting critiques of capitalism (critiques which I otherwise agree with) to justify their pathetic, insular rage toward their luxury entertainment hobbies. It’s like, you’re not a working class hero bro, you’re some lazy spoiled dumbass on twitter who doesn’t have the first fucking clue about video game development.
Last edited:
Tbh replaying Platinum currently, the point about being able to get a full team of 6 before gym 1 these days as opposed to this only being possible towards the end of the game without grinding -really- sticks out, and I, kind of, enjoy it how it used to be in a weird way? The games repeatedly state that training a full team is very difficult back then and use this to explain why enemy trainers -don't- use more than 2~3 Pokemon until the endgame. That's just not the case anymore though and you'll find yourself going up against important trainers using half your party length well into the level 50s(Something which would be fine if the games used bring 6 pick 3 or 4 like online play does, but that's a different story.)
Pokemon like Gyarados or the Pseudos, things you have to actively put effort into raising due to how slow they gain exp for example, are now easy to just slot in the back of your party forever until they evolve(previously this would slow down your exp gain via switch training or the exp share).
Stone evolutions are similarly emphasized and portrayed to be a trade off; lose out on moves by evolving early for extra stats, or get moves and deal with a weaker Pokemon for longer. That factor just doesn't exist anymore, however. As of SWSH/SV, you can, basically the moment you get to Mesagoza, get a fully evolved Arcanine or Ludicolo with their entire movepool available to you without the cost of a single resource beyond the stone itself.
This among other things is why I feel that the games have actually gotten significantly worse as RPGs go over time despite arguably being just as easy as ever lol.
Last edited: