• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

Unpopular opinions

You're kind of unintentionally underselling this lol. SV Gyarados learns Waterfall at level 21. It also has access to Ice Fang immediately upon evolution through move relearning and gets Crunch at 24. It's basically set up for the whole game from the word go bar Dragon Dance.
Yeah, SV Gyarados is kind of insane. Any random wild Magikarp is going to have Tera Water too, and most any NPC you can find an opportunity to set up on is going to get swept by Waterfall spam flanked by Ice Fang coverage. Tera Water even has the benefit of turning your 4x Water weakness into a 2x as a nice bonus, and that does make a difference.
 
I like modern Exp Share mechanics. It forces me to actually use multiple Pokemon members in a playthrough and not have the game slow to a crawl for no reason other than I just wanted to use another Pokemon. The games aren't any easier or harder because if you're going to grind you can just grind to make one Pokemon steamroll the entire game, but it does make the games more immediately worth investing in. I wish they balanced the level curves a bit more around it, but it's still a more enjoyable experience with it than without.
 
Modern Exp. All was a M I S T A K E ~
View attachment 868718
Like conceptually it’s not the worst idea. The problem is that they do not even remotely try to balance it out and making it permanent in spite of its blatant balance problem.

My playthroughs of SV and Legends ZA is a perfect example of this.
In SV I skipped 99% of the optional trainer battles because I had more the enough EXP to cost on level. So much of the games content I just ignored wholesale because I didn’t need it at all.

But Legends ZA, that one was the worst.
If I wanted to do the usual ‘find 6 Mons and stick with them I would have ended up almost 10-15 levels higher then I needed to be. I swapped around 15 different Mons solely to not get overleveled, and by the end my opponents were barely on par with me.
And the worst part I find, those 15 Mons I used to not get overleveled? I didn’t care about them in the slightest, they were just a means to an end. And I think that’s really tragic, given that the entire series is all about forming a Bond with your team.
 
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. Modern EXP All, barring a couple of niche cases like Gyarados, is fine and perhaps even good as a concept. The problem is the games still being designed like we have the old exp share and don't get exp for catching pokemon.
It has several problems, the biggest one being the lack of a toggle as it had in Gens 6 and 7. This has massive implications.

Besides that, if you'd like your mons to be at an even level, Exp. Groups exist solely to make your life miserable.

The worst part is actually catching up. The Old Exp. Share used to be great at that, with the caveat that it actually wasn't because it was never available early enough.
Catching up with the exp. share sucks because the active battler will keep getting a bunch of exp.

Also, it restrains game design way too much. Game Freak has been designing those games as if you were following some yellow paint. Point A to Point B and you'll be on a nice level for it.
For example, Nemona 1 will be actually on a lower level than some of the trainers you find in South Area 1. So exploring and catching mons is actually punishing to the player because you get way too overleveled way too easy. Don't get me started on what the Exp. CHARM does.

Of course, post-game, that thing is amazing. Just mess around and up 6 mons to a good level in a flash.

In my opinion, the Old Exp. Share should come back and be given very early in the player's journey, as in, after Rival 0. Right at the end of the beginning tutorials.

The Exp. All should also be available, as a toggleable item. I believe that would be best for the widest audience possible.
 
I do like that EXP All in RBY was a completely optional item that was found in a somewhat out of the way location and required you to work for it. Iirc it was like 50 Pokemon registered in your dex. Gives it the feeling of being a cool upgrade rather than just the Thing That Makes Leveling Somewhat Easier, as well as being a good way to encourage players to actually interact with a core component of the game in catching Pokemon and completing the dex (honestly I can't even remember if any of the newer games do anything to encourage that aside from the Shiny Charm and PLA with Arceus). Though to be honest even if I pick it up I almost never use it because it just feels like a downgrade to leveling up individually considering how EXP gets divided so hard between party members that they're getting what amounts to peanuts every battle.
 
I like modern Exp Share mechanics. It forces me to actually use multiple Pokemon members in a playthrough and not have the game slow to a crawl for no reason other than I just wanted to use another Pokemon. The games aren't any easier or harder because if you're going to grind you can just grind to make one Pokemon steamroll the entire game, but it does make the games more immediately worth investing in. I wish they balanced the level curves a bit more around it, but it's still a more enjoyable experience with it than without.
The biggest benefit of the modern EXP system on paper is that it heavily deters Lowmanning strategies - ones that minimize party members to maximize EXP distribution, and thus Power, per party member - for casual players. Without a need to know how to successfully take on level mismatched foes or deal with managing the EXP Share manually, casual players are much more inclined to use a full party compared to the older system that tended to gravitate beginners towards mono-starter playthroughs. The feedback loop of trying out a newer and weaker Pokemon, it failing and fainting, it not gaining EXP or Levels, and then being more and more likely to remain benched until the next use was a negative feedback loop beginners constantly fell into with these games, and a change to the formula was a big deal for making the ideal way to experience the game into the style players would gravitate towards.

The biggest consequence of the modern EXP system in turn is that any worry about EXP distribution is gone. This, not the lack of rote level grinding, is what makes the game much easier with the modern system. There is no reason to play weaker Pokemon in training into matchups they only have a chance to win; if they have a chance to lose, they have a chance to completely lose and miss out on any EXP, while staying safe on the bench is costless and gives sufficient rewards. This dynamic obviously existed with the EXP Share Item anyway, but applied to the entire party in all directions, it inadvertently can reinforce the power of Lowmanning strategies by allowing players to solely use a single hard carry, usually their starter, in almost every situation and keep relevant counterpick Pokemon at or close enough to the level curve without actually dedicating any time or resources to using them in battles. This was also an area that limited movepools originally helped soothe - being subject to such harsh hard counters made the pokemon of the older games much more reliant on allies to complete the game. The modern games have created a system where a player could use only their starter in battle for 90% of the game and still end up with an endgame party of all fully evolved teammates with high levels.

I'm not convinced this is a solvable problem for expert players. For the older games, using a full party of 6 was the "expert" difficulty setting, for better and for worse. If the difficulty of the game is designed for casual players to have 6 Pokemon and struggle to a hard fought victory and the incentives for playing around EXP distribution for the party are completely wiped, the handicap for expert players needs to be pretty severe to create a satisfying experience.

I've toyed around with this - I've played through XY with a revolving team of 12 thanks to the EXP Share. When I replayed Shield I ignored every optional trainer / Dynamax Raid Den and used a rotating party of 9 with 3 Slow EXP mons for good measure. SV is sort of the endgame of this concept, as in this case I kept a stable party of 6 but tried to tackle obstacles in as close of reverse order as I could manage without spoiling myself on anything in a blind playthrough. For all of these, I got something closer to what I wanted as far as battle difficulty was concerned, and I even had to sweat losing once or twice. But it still felt wrong for a lot of the obvious reasons it would. Shuffling your party around all the time is kind of annoying. Trying to figure out exactly how gimped you want your team to be is kind of an awkward exercise. The Hall of Fame still only has 6 slots.

Modern EXP Share is a net positive for the franchise, probably. Maybe. Like 8 steps forward and 5 steps back. Most of the downsides to it don't apply until a second playthrough or until you have enough knowledge on the series to be considered a casual expert. (Like someone who knows what type most pokemon are, what 60+% of the type chart interactions are without a reference, and what a large portion of common moves do but doesn't do mental math damage calculations) At that point, with the current "don't ask, don't tell" uneasy truce Pokemon seems to have with fanworks, I'd say it's up to those to really carry the torch to make games that can cater to that level of player.

I can seriously only justify the lack of a toggle for the EXP share in the modern games through the lens of not wanting genuinely illiterate players to accidentally gimp themselves. It's extremely frustrating to be a fan of games that need to be idiot proofed this badly. (and yes they do need it oh my lanta the children need to learn to read and if Pokemon is to act as a gateway to literacy it cannot have exclusionary barriers for illiterate players this is also why alternative difficulty modes is a bad idea among other things I promise this is a real point)

The older system had somewhat of a reliance on the notion that a Pokemon game could be the primary time sink someone had access to for months or even years - that for those who weren't especially quick to pick up the battle system, they could find enjoyment in whittling down the Pokedex or just mashing buttons into random wild Pokemon. That was supposed to be the padding that puffed up the skeleton playthrough one tended to have easy access to of just juicing up your starter and beating foes as easily as counting tally marks. I mentioned before the games with solid ingame balance being RBY, RSE, and BW1 - I also don't think it is a coincidence that these games have some of the weakest "lifestyle game" appeal in the series, and that GSC / DPPt have extremely strong "lifestyle game" appeal with less than pristine ingame balance. The modern games are living and dying by their daily interaction elements and social co-op experiences - how on Earth do you factor the various rewards for Raid Battles into ingame playthrough balance?

Last opinion for good measure; Ironmon Randomizer SUCKS. Easily the worst spin on the battle system the community has developed. Pure streamer fodder attention retention reroll gambler slop. Literally no reason to ever play it if you aren't specifically trying to churn out low effort content.
 
Might be an unpopular opinion itself, but they should introduce either hard level caps or level scaling to important boss fights, ideally as a toggle. I think that would solve a lot of the issues with the modern Exp. All while at the same time preventing players from simply massively overleveling before taking on these fights (which, let's face it, was all of ours' strategy at some point in time). People have been asking for a difficulty toggle since Black 2/White 2 teased the concept and did nothing with it, and this is one way you could add a meaningful difficulty toggle.
 
I hate forced Shift and forced Pokemon Amie way more than forced Exp. All. They not only allow you to cheat through important strategic elements but also just completely destroy pacing and make fights much more tedious. BDSP was THIS close to feeling like a true difficulty hack of Diamond and Pearl and thus having a positive quality over the originals, but ruined it with those mechanics being shoved down your throat.
 
I hate forced Shift and forced Pokemon Amie way more than forced Exp. All. They not only allow you to cheat through important strategic elements but also just completely destroy pacing and make fights much more tedious. BDSP was THIS close to feeling like a true difficulty hack of Diamond and Pearl and thus having a positive quality over the originals, but ruined it with those mechanics being shoved down your throat.
Ironically, the forced Amie mechanics were just spaghetti coding.

They took the Gen 8 stuff and forgot to set the soft cap to ANYTHING. Oops.

I can seriously only justify the lack of a toggle for the EXP share in the modern games through the lens of not wanting genuinely illiterate players to accidentally gimp themselves.
Having no difficulty settings is straight up inexcusable at this point.
 
Having no difficulty settings is straight up inexcusable at this point.
Especially when you’re a 30 year old RPG franchise.
Heck they already did half the work for them, most boss trainers don’t even have full movepools and use like 2-4 Mons on average. Add on a fourth move, add 1 extra team member on major gym leaders and boss trainers, bump up the levels and stats by a couple of levels and congrats, you have baby’s first hard mode.
Add on a toggle to lower difficulty in case little Timmy picked the hard mode and is t having fun anymore and you’re done.
 
Last edited:
But Legends ZA, that one was the worst.
If I wanted to do the usual ‘find 6 Mons and stick with them I would have ended up almost 10-15 levels higher then I needed to be. I swapped around 15 different Mons solely to not get overleveled, and by the end my opponents were barely on par with me.
And the worst part I find, those 15 Mons I used to not get overleveled? I didn’t care about them in the slightest, they were just a means to an end. And I think that’s really tragic, given that the entire series is all about forming a Bond with your team.
It was the opposite for me. When I played Z-A, I did almost the same thing as you, I used 12 Pokémon split in two teams (detailed here) in order to not get overleveled. But I felt that I actually got quite close to all of them, I can still remember all the fun I had with them during our adventures in Lumiose.

Regarding the forced Exp. Share in the Switch games, I used to dislike it in the past. I preferred the way it worked in Gen 6-7 where it could be turned on or off. But nowadays, after I have played some of the Gen 8-9 games and gotten used to the Exp. Share always being "on", I don't really mind it anymore. Similar to what QuickBH said, it has allowed me to train more than just 6 Pokémon on my in-game teams without it ever getting too grindy, and I think that's a good thing because there are always a lot of Pokémon I want to use. Especially in the first games from a new generation, like S/S and ScaVio.

I see a lot of people post that they want the Pokémon games to be more difficult, and it's fine if you think so, but I really don't think that's an unpopular opinion at this point. My own opinion (which I think is the real unpopular opinion here) is that the difficulty in modern Pokémon games is fine, the games don't need to be harder. Personally, I don't play Pokémon for the difficulty or because I want a hard challenge. At least not in the main game, though I do enjoy tough post-game challenges like Battle Facilities. When it comes to the main game, I just want to have some fun, and the Pokémon games usually give me that. Regarding the difficulty in the games, I prefer a fair and balanced challenge (like the Indigo Disk) as opposed to a challenge where the opponent has an unfair advantage over you (like the Totem battles and Ultra Necrozma in Gen 7). If I want the games to be more difficult, I could just do a self-imposed challenge, but I'm honestly not a fan of those. If I want to play something harder, I have other games which can give me that. For instance, I'm currently playing "Persona 6" (Metaphor: ReFantazio), which I decided to play on Hard... and yeah, this game has surely offered a lot of challenges (but I'm not exactly the best gamer either).

Echoing what Worldie said on the last page, we also need to remember that the target audience for Pokémon is children (some of which might even play Pokémon as their first video game ever), not us older players who have played for 20-30 years and know how to play the games properly. And just because we find the games to be too easy for our tastes, it does not mean that the children and first-time players of today have the same experience (something I have witnessed first-hand). In addition, none of the main series Pokémon games are difficult if you just know what you're doing (unless you do a self-imposed challenge). So yeah, my unpopular opinion is that the difficulty in modern Pokémon games is fine, the games don't need to be harder.
 
Last edited:
They could always put the hard mode behind some NPC in an obscure corner of the starting area to try to hide it from casual players. It'd be all over the internet pretty much immediately so serious players would be able to seek it out early. Sure, it's not a sensible method, but when has that stopped GF before?
 
The reason the EXP Share is forced now should be pretty obvious - 99% of players kept it on the entire game in gen 6 / 7 & the edge cases where you would want to turn it off such as EV training or wanting to avoid overleveling a Pokémon are covered by Pokémon Box. To gamefreak, this was more of an evolution of the EXP system rather than an alternative.

More broadly, there wasn't really much reason for turning it off in the first place. Turning it off is basically the equivalent of cutting the player's total EXP gain by 72%. I personally don't see this as the greatest trade off. I do understand it adds "difficulty" but there are more organic ways of handling that IMO compared to gutting EXP gain. Giving enemy trainers EVs, better movesets, better use of the game's core mechanics, etc. Newer games I think should just focus on increasing the power ceiling of the enemy with the forced EXP share rather than sticking to the old design.
 
Last edited:
Giving enemy trainers EVs, better movesets, better use of the game's core mechanics, etc. Newer games I think should just focus on increasing the power ceiling of the enemy with the forced EXP share rather than sticking to the old design.
Some of y'all are missing a very obvious issue that would happen if the level curves were really adjusted for a standard 6-mon team with the Exp. Share on at all times.

1791550234932.png


Also, the second, arguably bigger, but not as noticeable to us grizzled old vets. It'd remove Lil Timmy's main way to beat the games, which would be unga bunga gorilla tactics overleveling their starter.

The reason the EXP Share is forced now should be pretty obvious - 99% of players kept it on the entire game in gen 6 / 7

It would certainly not be such an eternal pivoting point of discussion if it was so clear-cut. The real reason is the same reason why SwSh's volume settings were locked behind an NPC. They were afraid of kids accidentally turning it off.

Which is kind of understandable, to be honest, but come on, surely there's a better way.

That does remind me of something... Some games put players in combat situations early to gauge their abilities. Maybe they could have that as a way to unlock the difficulty settings/Exp. Share toggle? Do some VR stuff like XD's intro. Or maybe have the goddamn training school mean something for the first time since Stadium 2.
 
EXP All fundamentally isn't a bad concept, it's actually a pretty standard aspect of RPGs nowadays. It doesn't inherently make the game easier, it just makes it less tedious. Tedium isn't a good form of difficulty.

The problem is that the Pokémon games nowadays, for the most part, still don't really offer any particularly challenging or interesting boss fights that help balance out how quickly you can level and other things like affection and super mechanics. Max Raids and Tera Raids seem to be a multiplayer way of trying to do this, and SM and USUM did try this with the Totems, but for the most part, those are very few and far between. The Legends games are actually totally fine even with permanent EXP All in them because of the way you can gain EXP throughout the game being fairly limited and there are actually compelling boss fights, not to mention their respective battle systems actually make boss fights much more difficult and in some cases engaging. Especially Nobles and Rogues.

The standard Pokemon battle is largely 1v1 with both sides on equal footing at a technical level besides level, and in the early games that was a valid form of a boss fight since the Gyms were mini-dungeons and gauntlets and the Gym Leader was a gauntlet of Pokemon in sequence before the ace, counting on wearing down your Pokemon before you make it to said Gym Leader, much less the ace. And simply making them a higher level than everyone else worked. Now, that...really doesn't work as well anymore when a level advantage is quite easy to obtain.

Most turn based RPGs and even action RPGS (like the FF7 remakes) have a particular boss design that's quite rare in Pokemon itself, especially since they count on having multiple party members being on the field at a time against a boss that's disproportionately powerful on their own compared to the party, which actually encourages good strategy on top of doing more than just spam powerful attacks ad infinitum. Using enemy debuff skills and party buff skills, coordinating strategy, and vice versa. Actually that's another thing. There's virtually no reason to use debuff moves and even party buff moves in battles in-game these days. It's tradition for Pokemon to have Leer and Growl early on, and later on there are moves like Swords Dance, Iron Defense, and whatnot, but there's no good reason to use them in-game in most boss fights. There isn't even a reason to use status conditions like Poison, Paralysis, and Burn. Look at the likes of Octopath, Tales of, Trails, Persona, etc. Heck, Persona 5 and Metaphor: ReFantazio both have party-wide EXP All mechanics in them and they're still fun (and in the latter's case, challenging). Metaphor is a good deal harder, but both have a battle system where generally in normal battles it's four party members against multiple enemies, and boss fights are particularly strong and have a unique strategy apiece. Atlus games even have super mechanic skills a la Z-Moves, Dynamax, and Tera, but things like Magatsuhi Skills in Shin Megami Tensei V require a gauge to be filled and aren't an easy win ticket. Among the Atlus stuff I talked about, Persona is on the easier end, especially with the 3 and 4 remakes, but y'know what it is? It's fun. The battles are just super fun to do, like knocking down enemies, getting those All-Out Attacks in, and sometimes getting those Showtimes, Theurgy Attacks, and Prime Time Attacks (when P4R is out that is) when you're able to use them is fun af. Pokemon is easy in a way that's just not very compelling or cathartic in comparison. Steamrolling enemies substantially weaker than you ad infinitum gets boring fast.

Like, I'm not saying Pokemon should be exactly like the other turn-based RPGs, but it could stand to take some notes from them. Other turn-based RPGs like Octopath, Trails, and most Atlus stuff, and you have a better idea of how a turn-based RPG can be fun and compelling. Pokemon makes the player disproportionately more powerful but doesn't offer any challenging or engaging mechanics or fights in its classic battle system to justify it...for the most part.
 
EXP All fundamentally isn't a bad concept, it's actually a pretty standard aspect of RPGs nowadays. It doesn't inherently make the game easier, it just makes it less tedious. Tedium isn't a good form of difficulty.

The problem is that the Pokémon games nowadays, for the most part, still don't really offer any particularly challenging or interesting boss fights that help balance out how quickly you can level and other things like affection and super mechanics. Max Raids and Tera Raids seem to be a multiplayer way of trying to do this, and SM and USUM did try this with the Totems, but for the most part, those are very few and far between. The Legends games are actually totally fine even with permanent EXP All in them because of the way you can gain EXP throughout the game being fairly limited and there are actually compelling boss fights, not to mention their respective battle systems actually make boss fights much more difficult and in some cases engaging. Especially Nobles and Rogues.

The standard Pokemon battle is largely 1v1 with both sides on equal footing at a technical level besides level, and in the early games that was a valid form of a boss fight since the Gyms were mini-dungeons and gauntlets and the Gym Leader was a gauntlet of Pokemon in sequence before the ace, counting on wearing down your Pokemon before you make it to said Gym Leader, much less the ace. And simply making them a higher level than everyone else worked. Now, that...really doesn't work as well anymore when a level advantage is quite easy to obtain.

Most turn based RPGs and even action RPGS (like the FF7 remakes) have a particular boss design that's quite rare in Pokemon itself, especially since they count on having multiple party members being on the field at a time against a boss that's disproportionately powerful on their own compared to the party, which actually encourages good strategy on top of doing more than just spam powerful attacks ad infinitum. Using enemy debuff skills and party buff skills, coordinating strategy, and vice versa. Actually that's another thing. There's virtually no reason to use debuff moves and even party buff moves in battles in-game these days. It's tradition for Pokemon to have Leer and Growl early on, and later on there are moves like Swords Dance, Iron Defense, and whatnot, but there's no good reason to use them in-game in most boss fights. There isn't even a reason to use status conditions like Poison, Paralysis, and Burn. Look at the likes of Octopath, Tales of, Trails, Persona, etc. Heck, Persona 5 and Metaphor: ReFantazio both have party-wide EXP All mechanics in them and they're still fun (and in the latter's case, challenging). Metaphor is a good deal harder, but both have a battle system where generally in normal battles it's four party members against multiple enemies, and boss fights are particularly strong and have a unique strategy apiece. Atlus games even have super mechanic skills a la Z-Moves, Dynamax, and Tera, but things like Magatsuhi Skills in Shin Megami Tensei V require a gauge to be filled and aren't an easy win ticket. Among the Atlus stuff I talked about, Persona is on the easier end, especially with the 3 and 4 remakes, but y'know what it is? It's fun. The battles are just super fun to do, like knocking down enemies, getting those All-Out Attacks in, and sometimes getting those Showtimes, Theurgy Attacks, and Prime Time Attacks (when P4R is out that is) when you're able to use them is fun af. Pokemon is easy in a way that's just not very compelling or cathartic in comparison. Steamrolling enemies substantially weaker than you ad infinitum gets boring fast.

Like, I'm not saying Pokemon should be exactly like the other turn-based RPGs, but it could stand to take some notes from them. Other turn-based RPGs like Octopath, Trails, and most Atlus stuff, and you have a better idea of how a turn-based RPG can be fun and compelling. Pokemon makes the player disproportionately more powerful but doesn't offer any challenging or engaging mechanics or fights in its classic battle system to justify it...for the most part.
Octopath especially feels like a weird callout since I found it really unenjoyable. Split Exp really didn't feel like it reduced grinding since so much of the raw stat output was equipment instead of levels. The bigger action economy didn't feel like it was adding to the decision space because I was just repeating actions to maintain resources or uptime. I wasn't convinced status actually was that relevant because I'm used to having a 90-100% accurate poison that empties any health bar in 6 turns.
 
Here's a hot take that came to me bored at work: I want to see Pokemon attempt a game where battles are included but not the dominant gameplay loop outright.

Pokemon games have tried all manner of interaction ranging from small pet sims like Amie/Refresh and Picnics to full blown additional systems like Contests, but inevitably the Battle System is always at the center of the gameplay loop. This despite the fact that the difficulty is at most a suggestion nowadays and battling is just a way to show off your cool Dragon if you're not playing in an explicitly competitive environment.

If they don't want to put effort into a difficulty curve and progression that goes beyond "level gets higher," maybe a game would benefit from downplaying them from THE objective into one of a variety of things you can do akin to a farm/life sim like Stardew Valley looks to have. Pokopia already proves there's a market for Gamefreak made games where the focus is just meeting and gathering Pokemon without the combat system, and clearly the IP survives off of the "look at the marketable creature" aspect more than anything that requires brain cells or effort from its targetted demographic (whether or not they want it, GF/TPC isn't very invested in serving that).
 
That's just Legends Arceus, innit?

Everyone I've heard who loves the game says that sneaking around hucking balls at things was their favorite part.
Legends Arceus de-emphasizes Battles in favor of catching to a decent degree, but it doesn't have a great deal to do besides that. What I was trying to propose is a game with a large number of 5-6 hour systems to play and progress vs current structure being one 15-20 hour quest and then maybe a couple 30-60 minute distractions like Musicals or Ogre Oustin.

SV kind of has that structure with the three paths, but all of them are still fundamentally focused on battles with different framing that don't really call for engaging particularly different
 
Add me to the list of people who can’t stand the forced Exp. All although that is primarily down to my personal play style.

I’ve always been a core team of 6 guy (well until Gen V I was a core team of 4 guy with 2 HM slaves but that’s immaterial) and I’ve tried the rotating team play style but it’s just not for me. I like forming a bond with my Pokemon, using them all equally and coming away from a playthrough feeling like I got to experience everything that said Pokemon had to offer.

I’m also a collector at heart so on every first playthrough I try and fill up the Pokedex as much as I can before completing the games. In the linear games I wouldn’t leave a route until I’d caught everything possible and in the open world games I try to stick to that as well although things are a bit more fluid now and I won’t go out of my way to go beyond the current area just to find something new. The combo of experience for catching and forced Exp. All makes is basically impossible to play in my preferred way without ‘brute forcing’ workarounds. My solution has been to have a ‘catching’ Pokemon, Axew in SwSh and Pawmo/Pawmot in SV and to box my entire team while filling the Pokédex. I also only battle trainers with 2 or 3 of my team members and put the others in the box to avoid overleveling. It turns the game into a bit of a micromanagement fest but it’s the closest I can get to my preferred way of playing.

If I could only pick one feature to be included in Winf and Waves it would 100% be the option to turn the Exp. Share off again.
 
Is "EXP All bad" really an unpopular opinion? Most of the time I hear about it is someone complaining about it. Honestly, defending EXP All is the more unpopular opinion, not even having it as standard but just having it in general.
I think it is an unpopular opinion in the grand scheme of things, but the people who don't like it are a loud minority. I honestly don't think most Pokemon fans even think about it.
 
Some of y'all are missing a very obvious issue that would happen if the level curves were really adjusted for a standard 6-mon team with the Exp. Share on at all times.

View attachment 868873

Also, the second, arguably bigger, but not as noticeable to us grizzled old vets. It'd remove Lil Timmy's main way to beat the games, which would be unga bunga gorilla tactics overleveling their starter.



It would certainly not be such an eternal pivoting point of discussion if it was so clear-cut. The real reason is the same reason why SwSh's volume settings were locked behind an NPC. They were afraid of kids accidentally turning it off.

Which is kind of understandable, to be honest, but come on, surely there's a better way.

That does remind me of something... Some games put players in combat situations early to gauge their abilities. Maybe they could have that as a way to unlock the difficulty settings/Exp. Share toggle? Do some VR stuff like XD's intro. Or maybe have the goddamn training school mean something for the first time since Stadium 2.
https://www.spieltimes.io/news/exp-...layers-had-it-always-on-before-says-producer/

Unfortunately I can't find the original publication but it seems to be their exact reasoning.

I'm not a fan of other removals Gamefreak has done - like to the VS Recorder or Set battle style, but Exp Share is something I'm more ambivalent towards.
 
Back
Top