Unpopular opinions

Those who like gen I to the exclusion of all others do so because and I quote:
Random Dude from some forum said:
I like pokemon solely due to nostalgia. As such, I only care about the original slate.
take it from a comics fan: nostalgia kills franchises, it killed the comic industry (not superheroes, comics, and even superhero comics are dying due to the endless recycling of plotlines and refusal to have the characters develop in any way); you "grow" with your audience, you die with it

hopefully Gamefreak realizes that they have fans with no attachment to gen I before Pokémon becomes as relevant as Woody Woodpecker (alas poor Woody, I knew you well) you a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy, how abhorred all those reboots they put you in, at least you where treated better than Felix
 
Last edited:
Those who like gen I to the exclusion of all others do so because and I quote:


take it from a comics fan: nostalgia kills franchises, it killed the comic industry (not superheroes, comics, and even superhero comics are dying due to the endless recycling of plotlines and refusal to have the characters develop in any way); you "grow" with your audience, you die with it

hopefully Gamefreak realizes that they have fans with no attachment to gen I before Pokémon becomes as relevant as Woody Woodpecker (alas poor Woody, I knew you well) you a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy, how abhorred all those reboots they put you in, at least you where treated better than Felix
True. The problem with appealing to nostalgia is that your fan base can't grow and will disappear over time. If you don't make an effort to get new fans consistently then eventually you might find yourself with the prospect of taking high-risk decisions that will alienate the old guard, but by then most potential new fans will have place their interest elsewhere.

Game Freak has, in my opinion, done a serviceable but disheartening job at balacing the need to get new fans with the need to retain old ones (by making the games stupid easy and Kanto pandering, respectively), but personally, I give them a pass. Fanbases nowadays can be very volatile and varied.
 
I mean, we could make up the most flanderised stereotype in our heads to argue against because we can't find an example of anyone actually saying that aside from a gamefaqs thread from 2009; or we could just admit that due to how the human brain actually works people will be more drawn to a game that features Ninetales or Dragonite than Kecleon or Leavanny.

Pokémania was huge in the Gen 1 days, and there are just more people who know the Gen 1 Pokémon and characters than there are people who know about the other generations. There just are. The only time we've seen the franchise even come close to the levels of mainstream relevance and focus was when Pokémon Go came out - funnily enough, a game which at the time of its popularity had exclusively Gen 1 Pokémon. And it's really, really not like there are a lot of people who will refuse to buy any Pokémon game that doesn't feature their favourite 1996 Pokémon on the cover and will hate anything that came after -- there certainly are people like those out there, but going by this thread's title, let me just get this out: I'm getting really, really sick of people acting like 'Genwunners' are still prevalent in Pokémon communities in any large capacity or that they're what's 'ruining the franchise'. For every Genwunner I see, I go on to find like fifty people who decry them and act like they're a major factor. You're not fighting the good fight against a sea of ignorance; you're just peddling out old rhetoric from back when this was a problem even though it's long since left sites like Smogon and we as a subculture just know - rightfully so - that the sort of people who hate new things for being new are a joke.

Instead of simplifying the issue down to a few people very vocal about how much they love Arbok and hate the ice cream Pokémon, how about this: people are more subconsciously drawn to things they enjoyed in their childhood, and are more neutral on unrelated developments rather than outright hating them. They are people who, now in their 20s and 30s, will be more interested in a game if they hear there's a new revamp of a Pokémon they liked rather than hearing there's some brand new characters they have no attachment to. This is why nostalgia works: it draws in people who have been separated from the franchise for years by enticing them with things they might be interested in. These aren't people who spend every waking second complaining about how Unova's lack of Kanto Pokémon ruined the franchise forever -- these are people who just don't care, who don't know, and have moved on with their lives. Game Freak 'panders' to them because they see an untapped demographic, as any company which has the primary purpose of making money will do.

You can dislike the heavy leaning on Gen 1 nostalgia all you like - and I will agree with you. While it has a place, it frankly boggles my mind that there hasn't been, say, any Alola forms of Gen 2 Pokémon. This is something Mega Evolutions understood; the majority when they were introduced were of Gen 1 Pokémon since that was the most popular gen, but they also gave Megas to popular Pokémon from other generations. There were certainly problems - Gen 5's lack of Megas, the bias in favour of Gen 3 due to the remakes - but it at least understood that while you should put focus on the first generation, there will also be people similarly drawn to other generations as well.
But, regardless - you can dislike the heavy leaning on Gen 1 nostalgia all you like, but let's not pretend like it is somehow a bad business decision or a failure financially. It's fine to admit that something isn't very good but still sells in droves. People are gonna keep coming back for Gen 1 because whether you like it or not, for every person that likes Gens 2 or 3 there are a hundred people more who haven't even heard of those games and are attached to that time they used their Charizard to toast Erika's gym. What decisions make money and what decisions are best for the game are less the same thing and more a venn diagram with little intersection. That's the sad truth.

In short: Heavy leaning on Gen 1 is getting pretty dull and is rightfully criticised, but it does attract customers and sell games; the reason for that is because of how the human brain and subconscious works rather than hatred; and the flanderised GEEWUN caricature is barely present in Pokémon communities anymore so we should start to look past them and stop addressing them as if they are a real problem. It's just an easy, lazy excuse to harp on the people these decisions are made to appeal to instead of actually discussing the problem in an intelligent capacity.
 
I mean, we could make up the most flanderised stereotype in our heads to argue against because we can't find an example of anyone actually saying that aside from a gamefaqs thread from 2009
Ok lets find out where that crazy quote is from:

Heckler456
from
resetera, a tread posted last thuesday
found thanks to
Joe Merrick webmastater of Serebii.net

not the only guy saying that and he's in fact one of the more understated voices, there are others saying the same thing much more loudly
and yes the forum sucks but honest to goodness game reporters post there along other "industry insiders" like Joe there

believe it or not, there are people, self-proclaimed gamers that do in fact "not consider any pokemon after the first 151, real"
 
Last edited:
Ok lets find out where that crazy quote is from:

Heckler456
from
resetera, a tread posted last thuesday
found thanks to
Joe Merrick webmastater of Serebii.net

not the only guy saying that and in fact one of the more understated voices, and yes the forum sucks but honest to goodness game reporters post there along other "industry insiders" like Joe there

believe it or not, there are people, self-proclaimed gamers that do in fact "not consider any pokemon after the first 151, real"
Like I said: they exist, but not in any serious capacity. And like you said, that's one of the understated voices.
My point isn't even that they don't exist. It's that they haven't been a major voice on Smogon or any other major Pokémon community for a long, long time; so pointing out one or two examples that are still sticking around doesn't disprove my point, show anything about the Pokémon community as it is today, or say anything really. You can find examples of any opinion if you look hard enough; it doesn't mean it's something the whole community holds dear.

If you feel the forum is bad, by the by, I might recommend not trawling it for specific posts. It's not good for you.
 
I'm just following Joe wherever he goes in case he gives some info on future games P:

anyway my original point is that I hope Gamefreak doesn't listen to people that want the franchise to regress because of nostalgia cause is bad for it as a whole, cause the whole Kanto nostalgia thing from the last two gens is getting horribly thick (also some comments by Joe about the next game that are not very encouraging in this front)
 
Last edited:

Sondero

Don't you dare say you'd rather lose!
is a Top Smogon Social Media Contributor Alumnus
take it from a comics fan: nostalgia kills franchises, it killed the comic industry (not superheroes, comics, and even superhero comics are dying due to the endless recycling of plotlines and refusal to have the characters develop in any way); you "grow" with your audience, you die with it

hopefully Gamefreak realizes that they have fans with no attachment to gen I before Pokémon becomes as relevant as Woody Woodpecker (alas poor Woody, I knew you well) you a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy, how abhorred all those reboots they put you in, at least you where treated better than Felix
I hate to say it, but Gen 1 nostalgia still seems extremely effective.

With the way GF pushes Gen 1 nostalgia, while still making the games appealing to 7-12 year-olds, even the new fans are gaining an attachment to Gen 1, not directly, but to the shallow rehashes of them. Charizard isn't just a Gen 1 starter any more, it's a starter in Gen 6 as well, where it has a version specific mega evolution when the new starter doesn't, as well as the fact that it's a starter and one of the first Pokemon you can catch in Pokemon Go, when it was at its most popular.

Speaking of which, remember how big of an impact Pokemon go had? It was bare-bones and only had Gen 1 Pokemon when it came out. Nostalgia alone, combined with a gimmick of the extremely shallow feeling of "Pokemon in real life!" made Pokemon go a worldwide phenomenon. They didn't even have to do a Pokemon MMO to become one of the world's most popular Phone games, they just put in tiny interactions with other players and a miniscule battle system.

Sure, eventually GF will have to think of a way to make the BotW equivalent for Pokemon, but if sales and good reviews keep being great, then they have no incentive to innovate.
Not to mention that making a BotW-equivalent would be an even greater challenge for Pokemon, since all Nintendo had to do for BotW was take what's already popular and done 1000x in the past for other franchises, that is making it an above average open world exploration game. But for Pokemon, there's no such obviously popular genre it could take on.

The biggest idea that's been flung around for Pokemon has been an all-regions game. That would be ambitious and if pulled off right a massive game that players could explore for months. But if Pokemon keeps being the most profitable franchise in the world while getting decent reviews, then they won't feel an incentive to do something like that.
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
Take it from a comics fan: nostalgia kills franchises, it killed the comic industry (not superheroes, comics, and even superhero comics are dying due to the endless recycling of plotlines and refusal to have the characters develop in any way); you "grow" with your audience, you die with it.
Erm, I generally agree except with that last part. The reason we have this problem is because franchises are trying not to die.

While you do grow with your audience, ideally at the same time you also introduce new things for younger audiences to connect themselves to. That way, as time moves on, when the older audience begins to wane you have the new content with its audience to focus and expand upon. Like if this was done in comic books, while Bruce Wayne would be the original Batman there would then probably be a legacy of Robins who became Batman (and eventually get a Robin or two of their own who may pick up the mantel).

As we're discussing, Pokemon has the perfect way to do this with the Gens. If we were following that logic, right now we'd probably be in the midst of a Gen IV nostalgia pandering. Now obviously this doesn't mean you should ignore the other gens, just that a certain older gen gets slightly more attention and have more of their Pokemon to appear. In addition the current gen Pokemon should always be at the forefront and getting the bulk or at least as much as half of the new mechanics applied to them. I'm still surprised that no Gen VI Pokemon aside from Diancie got a Mega Evolution (especially the Kalos starters, yet the Kanto Starters did and later the Hoenn Starters for ORAS). Now Z-Moves were a BIT more fair as several Gen VII Pokemon got signature ones, but a good chunk of that were released in USUM as SM had many which were Kanto Pokemon (notoriously two for Pikachu and one for Snorlax which was an Event Pokemon). Also I kind of don't like Signature Z-Moves, like the reason they abandoned Mega Evo is because they wanted a mechanic all Pokemon could use, and while the basic Z-Moves do that the signature Z-Moves do exactly what they complained Mega Evos did!

A question to those saying that Gen I pandering is effective: is that because all generation of fans have some connection to the Gen I Pokemon... or is it because Pokemon is a popular franchise and Gen I pandering is the ONLY nostalgia they use, so by default it looks effective.

Don't get me wrong, I started in Gen I and my favorite Pokemon is Charizard (though I would say my favorite games are Gen V). I want to see Gen I stuff... but I also want to see Johto, Hoenn, Sinnoh, Unova, Kalos, and Alola stuff too. My line is really crossed when they lock a new mechanic like Z-Moves or especially Region Variants behind a certain generation of Pokemon.
 
While you do grow with your audience, ideally at the same time you also introduce new things for younger audiences to connect themselves to. That way, as time moves on, when the older audience begins to wane you have the new content with its audience to focus and expand upon. Like if this was done in comic books, while Bruce Wayne would be the original Batman there would then probably be a legacy of Robins who became Batman (and eventually get a Robin or two of their own who may pick up the mantel).
Which would be a better story (and in fact is what happened, there's been 5 different Robins) as opposed to the stagnation the comics currently have
and before someone goes "hey I'm a big Batman fan" let me ask you, when is the last time you read a Batman comic? not a cartoon, not a movie, a comic

back in the day comics where all ages and when forced to go kids only Marvel found a way to keep them all ages anyway, they used to sell a ton, comics where a huge part of pop culture
then the 80s happened and comics where "mature" and by the mid nineties the industry was dying; comics and cartoons keep superheroes going but by and large comics are dead
and that's for two reasons:
1 endless appeal to nostalgia (marketing to kids as if it was the 50s still you killed you own franchises Harvey) and
2 "growing up with your audience"; Superman, Wonder Woman, the Fantastic Four among many others lost their supporting characters (which in cases like Superman even held their own series before), their story direction and of course their sales by ignoring children and trying to cater to adults

appealing to nostalgia kills franchises, you may think it "pays off" but that's only in the short term, the very short term, just look at Mega Man
sure Mega Man 9 sold a lot but lets look at the franchise before that
ever since 1987 we had at least 1 release, whether it be the classic series, the X series, the Zero series, Battle Network, you could always count on a Mega Man game every year, every other year if times where lean
then Mega Man 9 happened and it was a nostalgia fest and the mainstream press picked it up and the Capcom released Mega Man 10 and
no
one
bought
it
I mean yes the fans bought it but after Mega Man 10 (another nostalgia fest for those who don't know) the whole franchise went abandoned for over 8 years
nostalgia kills

as for franchises that try to appeal to older audiences at the expense of kids just look at Bomberman Zero


The best thing you can do with a franchise is to appeal to all ages, but if you can't do that appeal to kids
never rely on nostalgia, never abandon the children demographic
children are the future
fuck the guy that says "I'm a 20 something year old now how does this franchise appeal to me"
that guy?
fuck him
 
Last edited:
1) I Really dislike Kanto... The games were buggy, the soundtrack wasn't anything special, Several designs were very uninteresting.
2) Unova is my favorite reigon! Go Gen 5!
3) Black and White 2 were awesome! I Love how instead of getting a extra game thats just an improved version, we get a continuation of the storyline, with some of our favorite rivals grown up, new gym leaders, etc.
4) Trubbish is so cute!
5) My least favorite type is dragon, majorty of them just like like regular dragons to come from a fairy tale... Nothing really special.
6) Fairy types are great, We got something to balance out the dragon types, and I Love the designs of several fairy types.
7) Was Whitney's miltank really that hard...?
8) I'm not a huge fan of eevee and it's evolutions. I Would rather have more new and fresh designs, rather than type evolutions for the same pokemon.
9) I Choose the grass starters
10) My favorite mega is mega manectric. (it's a lightning bolt with legs and that's awesome!)
11) I Prefer trial captains to gyms
 
Chikorita is the best Johto starter. It has two powerful attacking moves in Petal dance and body slam and it learns a healing move by leveling up. Though it's level up move pool lacks a little in type coverage who needs that when you can heal your self? The only type Chikorita's level up move pool can't hit neutrally is steel, but that is what the rest of your team is for.
 
Chikorita is the best Johto starter. It has two powerful attacking moves in Petal dance and body slam and it learns a healing move by leveling up. Though it's level up move pool lacks a little in type coverage who needs that when you can heal your self? The only type Chikorita's level up move pool can't hit neutrally is steel, but that is what the rest of your team is for.
Except... Chikorita and its evo don't learn Petal Dance in gen 2. The move was only added in gen 4 (as well as Aromatheraphy)
The only stab it gets is Razor Leaf and.... Solar Beam before gen 4.

Its gen 2 movepool is a massive disaster :(

(that said, Grass master race ANYWAY, fite me if disagree)
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
Chikorita is the best Johto starter. It has two powerful attacking moves in Petal dance and body slam and it learns a healing move by leveling up. Though it's level up move pool lacks a little in type coverage who needs that when you can heal your self? The only type Chikorita's level up move pool can't hit neutrally is steel, but that is what the rest of your team is for.
 

Level 51

human spreadsheet
is a member of the Site Staffis an official Team Rateris a Forum Moderatoris a Community Contributoris a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Battle Simulator Driveris a Top Smogon Media Contributoris a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnusis a Past Smogon Snake Draft Champion
Moderator
Chikorita is the best Johto starter. It has two powerful attacking moves in Petal dance and body slam and it learns a healing move by leveling up. Though it's level up move pool lacks a little in type coverage who needs that when you can heal your self? The only type Chikorita's level up move pool can't hit neutrally is steel, but that is what the rest of your team is for.
so there's literally only 3 types normal can't hit for neutral and it can't even cover all 3
 
Chikorita is the best Johto starter. It has two powerful attacking moves in Petal dance and body slam and it learns a healing move by leveling up. Though it's level up move pool lacks a little in type coverage who needs that when you can heal your self? The only type Chikorita's level up move pool can't hit neutrally is steel, but that is what the rest of your team is for.
so there's literally only 3 types normal can't hit for neutral and it can't even cover all 3
It's actually more like it can only cover 1.25 of those 3 types, the Gengar line resists grass.

Edit: Sorry, wrong quote
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure how unpopular this thought is, bit I think the type matchup chart needs a massive rework. There are so many matchups that don't make sense at all from a logical point of view, and balance wise it's even worse.

Like, the introduction of the fairy type was a decent attempt at balancing the previously OP dragon type, but it also nerfed both fire and bug by resisting those types. Bug in particular was already resisted by like six types, making it even weaker offensively than it already was. Why?

The fighting type is a good example of a type that makes no sense in the type chart. It's super effective against ice, rock and steel, three extremely hard materials. Even if ice and some kinds of rock and steel can be kinda fragile, punching it has still got to hurt. Meanwhile, kicking a bug is not very effective. The logic here can't be that bugs have a hard exoskeleton that protects them, because fighting types in the pokemon world can punch their way through steel too, apparently.

I think with how ingrained the chart is in people's memory, it's too late to realistically have any major reworks at this point, which I think is a shame. I'm honestly tempted to redesign a whole type chart from the ground up, using as much logic as possible while still keeping balance in high regards. Could be a fun community project (even though I'm sure it has been done at some point somewhere), though I'm not sure if the Smogon forum is the right place for it.
 
Like, the introduction of the fairy type was a decent attempt at balancing the previously OP dragon type, but it also nerfed both fire and bug by resisting those types.
It doesn't resist Fire; Fire resists it.

The fighting type is a good example of a type that makes no sense in the type chart. It's super effective against ice, rock and steel, three extremely hard materials. Even if ice and some kinds of rock and steel can be kinda fragile, punching it has still got to hurt. Meanwhile, kicking a bug is not very effective. The logic here can't be that bugs have a hard exoskeleton that protects them, because fighting types in the pokemon world can punch their way through steel too, apparently.
Isn't the logic that specific (fighting) techniques and types of strength are needed to break those materials? I mean, I always assumed it was inspired by the cliche of a guy karate-chopping through wood or whatever.

I always figured Bug resisted it because of the way bugs move -- like when you're trying to hit a fly and it keeps just evading you. I guess if the move is landing, that logic shouldn't apply (not that it would stop them using it as a justification)...maybe the moves are only half-connecting because the bugs are scurrying.
 
It doesn't resist Fire; Fire resists it.


Isn't the logic that specific (fighting) techniques and types of strength are needed to break those materials? I mean, I always assumed it was inspired by the cliche of a guy karate-chopping through wood or whatever.

I always figured Bug resisted it because of the way bugs move -- like when you're trying to hit a fly and it keeps just evading you. I guess if the move is landing, that logic shouldn't apply (not that it would stop them using it as a justification)...maybe the moves are only half-connecting because the bugs are scurrying.
Oh, my mistake about the fire vs fairy matchup. I guess the chart isn't so ingraned after all.

I think the logic you described for bugs resisting fighting is actually the logic used on flying types resisting fighting. This makes sense because fighting types are tied to the ground and don't have any pojectiles they can use, so they can't reach the flying pokemon. Other types that flying resists, like ground and grass, share the same kind of logic. Both types are bound to the ground as well and are therefore unable to reach flying pokemon, whether they are bugs or not. Non-flying bugs like catterpillers have no business tanking hits from a fighting type though.
 

Pikachu315111

JAPE Judge!
is a Community Contributoris a Smogon Media Contributor
I've looked through the Type Chart to see if any changes could be made but for the most part what we have makes sense or is there for balancing reasons. The only changes I could make was:

1. Normal is neutral to Fighting. Yes, this would mean Normal would have no weaknesses, but isn't that sort of the point? It has no weaknesses but has nothing it's super effective against either.
2. Dark resist Normal. A tricky one. I feel Dark needs at least one more thing in its favor though the only thing I can think of is having it resist Normal-types with the idea they'd use trickery to weaken a hit.
3. Grass is no longer resisted by Bug. Yes, bugs eat plants, but only if the bug has evolved to resist a certain plant's defensive system would it not be effected by a plant, and only that species of plant. And with fungus also being shoved in with the Grass-types and how certain fungus can take control of a bug I think we can assume Grass to Bug would be neutral (though Bug would still be Super Effective against Grass).
4. Poison is no longer resisted by Bug. How did this make any sense to begin with? Bugs are no more immune to poison than any other life form. Plenty of bugs are poisonous either to kill other bugs or protect themselves from being eaten by other bugs.
4. Bug is no longer resisted by Poison. Not sure what the exact thoughts here, though since Bug has a lot that resist it I think letting Bug hit it for neutral would help add balance.
5. Bug is resistant to Psychic. Assuming Psychic attacks are meant to mess with the minds or bodily functions of the target, if Psychic-types are weak to Bug-type moves because they can't properly read their alien-like minds then shouldn't the same go for trying to mess with them?
6. Bug is no longer resisted by Fighting. Okay, I get Bug resisting Fighting due to a number of factors, but why also the other way around? How does knowing martial arts protect you from the various ways a bug can attack you?
7. Water is weak to Poison. Pollution. "But wait, depending on the size of the water wouldn't it dilute the poison?". There's an old adage that comes to mind: Put a spoonful of sewage into a barrel of wine and it becomes sewage, put a spoonful of wine into a barrel of sewage and it's still sewage. Plus we're not attacking water itself, we're attacking an organism with water-based powers. If anything the more liquid composition of the organism would allow the poison to spread faster through the body.

Now these are only minor adjustments that sorta help certain Types. However the problems many types still have remain such with Ice and Dark. These types either need a Type boon to make them further useful or new types which are weak to/resisted by them.
 
Last edited:
4. Poison is no longer resisted by Bug. How did this make any sense to begin with? Bugs are no more immune to poison than any other life form. Plenty of bugs are poisonous either to kill other bugs or protect themselves from being eaten by other bugs.
This isn't a thing!? Sludge Bomb onto a Caterpie is a neutral hit right now for example.
 
Last edited:
4. Poison is no longer resisted by Bug. How did this make any sense to begin with? Bugs are no more immune to poison than any other life form. Plenty of bugs are poisonous either to kill other bugs or protect themselves from being eaten by other bugs.
This isn't as thing!? Sludge Bomb onto a Caterpie is a neutral hit right now for example.
It is not a thing. Poison used to be SE against Bug in G1, but because that meant that both Grass and Bug were weak to Fire, Flying and Poison, they were made to draw straws, and Poison got the neutral one.
 

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

Top