-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
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
I know for sure at one point in this thread that the light element can’t work as a Pokémon type due to overlaps.
But if there is one thing that I may want to be clear, is that I am not sold at all with the whole “Fairy = Light” argument, at least not in appearances.
An issue I have with this argument is that it’s not at all consistent about this aspect. While moves like Moonlight, Light of Ruin, Dazzling Gleam and Geomancy uses light, other moves like Draining Kiss, Play Rough, Spirit Break, Disarming Voice, Charm, Fairy Wind and Nature’s Madness don’t feel like light is involved in those.
Doesn’t help that the icon of Pokémon GO until Sword and Shield, where Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl depict the type icon instead portrays a pair of wings with two feet, not unlike a fairy. The Gen 8 icon can be misleading due to new players potentially mistaking it for the “light-type” despite Fairy having heavier emphasis on the fae and magical folklores.
(Source: Bulbapedia, Fairy (type))
If the fae and the light are two main elements of Fairy-type, light-based Pokémon like Xurkitree, Volbeat, Watchog, the Light trio (Solgaleo, Lunala and Necrozma, over Psychic), the Shinx line, and others will have the type by this logic, but that is not the case. Aspects of light are also present in various types, which I’ll say is a better argument why a Light-type would be better off as akin to sound.
This may sound confusing, but here’s a list of all special moves regarding Steel:
But if there is one thing that I may want to be clear, is that I am not sold at all with the whole “Fairy = Light” argument, at least not in appearances.
An issue I have with this argument is that it’s not at all consistent about this aspect. While moves like Moonlight, Light of Ruin, Dazzling Gleam and Geomancy uses light, other moves like Draining Kiss, Play Rough, Spirit Break, Disarming Voice, Charm, Fairy Wind and Nature’s Madness don’t feel like light is involved in those.
Doesn’t help that the icon of Pokémon GO until Sword and Shield, where Brilliant Diamond and Shining Pearl depict the type icon instead portrays a pair of wings with two feet, not unlike a fairy. The Gen 8 icon can be misleading due to new players potentially mistaking it for the “light-type” despite Fairy having heavier emphasis on the fae and magical folklores.
(Source: Bulbapedia, Fairy (type))
If the fae and the light are two main elements of Fairy-type, light-based Pokémon like Xurkitree, Volbeat, Watchog, the Light trio (Solgaleo, Lunala and Necrozma, over Psychic), the Shinx line, and others will have the type by this logic, but that is not the case. Aspects of light are also present in various types, which I’ll say is a better argument why a Light-type would be better off as akin to sound.
- Fairy represents magical light, like in the mentioned moves.
- Grass and Fire use and produce natural light with Solar Beam + Solar Blade in Grass’ case.
- Electric can produce both natural and artifical light, and is related to light but too distinct to work as two elements in one.
- Psychic have an inconsistent but nonetheless notable use of cosmic or supernatural light, especially prominant with the aforementioned Light trio.
- Ghost also plays with supernatural light via Confuse Ray.
- Normal also produce natural light via Flash.
- Fickle Beam explicily states that “The user shoots a beam of light […]” despite being Dragon-type, and it’s called Fickle Laser in Japan.
- Mighty Cleave (and Japanese name being Powerful Edge) doesn’t imply light, but it’s move description also states “The user wields the light that has accumulated atop its head to cleave the target […]”, which is surprising given it’s a physical Rock-type move.
This may sound confusing, but here’s a list of all special moves regarding Steel:
- Doom Desire: Hits the target with strong, concentrated bundle of light.
- Flash Cannon: Self-explanatory.
- Make It Rain: Not light-based due to using solid golden coins. The only one of the six that cannot be considered light-based at all without stretching a definition of a word.
- Mirror Shot: As the name implies, it reflects light to damage the target.
- Steel Beam: This name is also self-explanatory.
- Tachyon Cutter: Not light-based based on name or description, as it’s based on particle of blade. You can argue that the particles of the blades are actually refracted light given the animation, but that might be stretching it.
The L in laser actually stands for light but steel is in my mind the closest to a light type
A part of me really wishes that pokemon kept the casual and competitive stuff completely seperate, alot of the games i feel get kneecapped by the fact that they have to design the games around being both a single player RPG with a general sense of progression and some amount of careful resource management and grinding while also making everything easily avaliable and balanced for the competitive scene, it makes the games feel very confused/conflicted in terms of their focus which is why im glad that legends and Champions exist because it feels like now pokemon can lean into one thing without stepping on the toes of the other.
It's also worth noting that Make it Rain and Tachyon Cutter are both signature moves, so Steel fully needs the light aspect to function on the special side. Honestly, even if you cut out Steel Beam, that move's limitations mean that I feel the argument still holds.
Side note: Tachyon Cutter does have another tangential connection: tachyons are hypothetical/sci-fi particles with the noteworthy trait of moving at or above lightspeed.
Don't hit me with the Thermian Argument nonsense, I'm sick of that one because so often I see it used in exactly this manner: ignoring what the text is actually saying to apply a read or theme to it that its written material blatantly does not align with or support. The conflict is essentially arguing from a Watsonian vs Doylist perspective, but in the worst cases the Doylist is not arguing with the body of the text, only their interpretation of it, and thus can be selective with what text they even bother to contend with (i.e. "I don't buy this" when the point remains that that information and portrayal is there and has to be recognized if only to be refuted or contradicted). The Thermian argument is using reasoning within the text to justify what was written for the text, it is NOT pointing to elements of the text to illustrate themes or points that the work is depicting or that contextualize the behaviors of the characters. Don't argue to me that the game contradicts its own themes and then call it a Thermian Argument when I point out textual material in the effort to explain what those actions and events are in context (and thus their meaning rather than the on-the-face happening).
The game says that Pokemon enjoy battling, and any allusion to treating them as tools or a resource is framed in an outright negative manner with Team Rocket and Oak's (flat or not) speech to your rival. Trying to say Pokemon even in Gen 1 is "functionally and fundamentally a franchise about cockfighting with a thin in-universe excuse" is silly at best and bad-faith at worst, considering the justification, brief or not, is there and doesn't contradict any real world concepts or parallels (Physical/Combat themed sports have existed for centuries). Put another way, it's arguing against a thinly-supported or not "serious" premise with a separate premise that either lacks evidence or is actively untrue and shot down by what IS in the work.
On the original point, this is again projecting a LOT onto Mewtwo. The sins specifically committed against Mewtwo are genetic splicing and recombining for it seemingly in-Utero, but unlike the Gen 1 anime, the RBY Journals on Cinnabar never specify that Mewtwo was being created as a weapon, only that it bore a vicious disposition as a result of the experiments (if this is explicitly mentioned in the Generation 1 GB game text, legitimately present it to me because I want to be arguing from accurate references). Fuji's arc hinges on the idea that he has wronged Mewtwo's existence, not strictly that he created it as a Bioweapon or solely to battle, which would be what comes into conflict with it becoming a Player's Pokemon later, and we have real world precedent for Genetic Experimentation (inhumane or otherwise) on humans and animals for purposes that weren't strictly warfare oriented (could be Medicinal, for study, or just twisted "what would happen if?" curiosity).
The Pokedex likewise never specifies Mewtwo as being created for Battling until Generation 2, while the RGBY entries (and FRLG retranslations) at least in English only ever make reference to vaguer terms of "experiments" and "research" that could just as likely be read as Mewtwo's power being a byproduct of experiements done for other purposes. Given Mew is a Myth in-universe and no slouch of a battler in contemporary depictions, it's not particularly far-fetched that experimenting on its offspring could make it too powerful unintentionally given there's much less of a leap than from something like a Tauros or Nidos.
For the Cerulean Cave scenario, it's also assuming that capturing Mewtwo is objectively the wrong thing to do from a bigger picture perspective. Whatever the read one takes of Mewtwo's origin in RBY and Gen 1 collectively, without the full hindsight of the franchise that was noted to have further developed/smoothed over these concepts, the objective information available is that it's a monstrously powerful creature (one that at minimum can destroy a building and travel halfway across the region) with a vicious disposition. Replace Mewtwo in this example with a real world escaped animal like a lion, a bear, or even just a large dog, that has gotten out of an abusive environment and currently roaming free. Maybe putting it back into captivity doesn't feel fair when focusing on its own circumstance, but undeterred it represents a danger to its environment and other living things around it. The alternative interpretation therein is that capturing Mewtwo and training it allows it to channel and control those combative urges in a manner that Pokemon "like" per Oak's opening speech, both ensuring it doesn't kill things and can interact rather than isolate itself. Calling this a contradiction hinges on either the act of capturing Mewtwo AT ALL being a morally questionable action, and/or the assumption that the player will not treat Mewtwo in a humane manner after capturing it, be that within the game mechanics or headcanon'd behavior that the gameplay would not depict (Positively such as brefriending and socializing it or negatively in abusing it as a Prize-Fighter or a weapon).
This requires multiple levels of conjecture to read the presented material negatively. I fully admit to extrapolating a great deal myself, but I made efforts to base them on extending material written into the game such as the Journals and the Dex entries before drawing "real world" parallels, as opposed to dismissing explicit text for "failing to land" and then arguing from the opposite, less charitable premise as if it's equally supported. "Pokemon enjoy battling" not being well supported (not contradicted, just not strongly convincing to a viewer) does not strictly mean "Pokemon battles are cockfighting" IS supported by the text as a lens that's in turn sensible to color material therein.
Have to quibble this; I would disagree nothing in the game points to this attitude, there's a fair amount that does - it's just fairly under-the-surface.
The fact that Blue replaces his Raticate, for instance: there's nothing inherently wrong with that - obviously the player can do the same as they choose without issue - but the implication I always got was that he decided "Raticate is a trashmon, I can do better" and that goes against the spirit of "use your favourites, regardless of whether they're strong or weak". Blue's team are all, more or less, the top tier of their respective types, and this feels intentional - similar to Silver, he repeatedly mentions wanting to find and catch "strong Pokemon" as opposed to making his Pokemon strong through training them. Even his loss quote after the first battle ("WHAT? Unbelievable! I picked the wrong Pokémon!") suggests that he doesn't feel that much of a connection to his starter. He doesn't say, for instance, "oh no, I lost - but I still like this one the best"; instead, the implication is that he simply picked the wrong tool for the job.
And his focus is all on winning and collecting, not growing. He treats it like a race, your typical "all about the destination and not the journey" mentality ("[...] you're still struggling along back here? I'm doing great! I caught a bunch of strong and smart Pokémon!", "[...] So how's your Pokédex coming? I already caught 40 kinds, pal!") In the anime Ash and Gary have a scene where Gary brags that he's caught over a hundred different species versus Ash's sparse handful, but Ash counters "yeah, but how many of those are your friends?" There's a similar, if unstated, mentality in play here with Blue because he's never stated to care deeply for Pokemon, unlike various NPCs around Kanto who proclaim how much they love and care for their partners. He doesn't fight against Team Rocket - instead leaving it to be the player's problem - and his attitude to Marowak is quite telling: despite it apparently being common knowledge that Team Rocket killed one, he blithely says, "I can't find the grown-up Marowak yet! I doubt there are any left! Well, I better get going [...]". Shit happens, basically.
I don't entirely disagree with your take on capturing Mewtwo, or more broadly a lot of the plot-relevant legendaries in later games (actually one of the things I like about SwSh is the way it kind of squared the circle on this - you can catch and use Eternatus, just not the ultra-powerful Eternamax form) but ultimately I think that capturing it is... fine, really. I mean, ultimately story always comes second to gameplay (and that's so obvious it's barely worth me typing it) and gameplay-wise of course we have to capture Mewtwo, it's the strongest Pokemon, it's the final challenge, it's awesome, every eight-year old wanted one. But even thinking purely from an in-universe standpoint: again I think the inference is that, yeah, Mewtwo might well be fucked up and has suffered greatly at the hands of humans and has hidden itself away... but you, the player, are a good person, and if anyone is going to treat it well and repair its relationship with Pokemon, it'll be you (funnily enough considering I mentioned Eternatus earlier, this is basically the reasoning given for Leon capturing it in the anime, and he does eventually heal it of its trauma and help it control its power).
Maybe that's inferring a little too much from what the game gives us - but I don't think any of it is a stretch. And again I'm perhaps influenced by the anime here because this is so often Ash's role with Pokemon who fear or distrust humans: Ash proves to them through his actions that not all humans are like that and helps to heal their past trauma. It's just that the games don't have much of a way to recreate that dynamic - even in the instances an NPC gives you a gift Pokemon and says "I think it needs to be around people" or "it was mistreated by its previous owner, please take care of it", it's basically just... like any other Pokemon, to the point that they even start with the base friendship level instead of 0 (but even that wouldn't drastically change the overall experience of raising them). Even Shadow Pokemon function almost identically to regular ones.
Last edited:
This halfway works, but where it falls apart is that there's nothing to punish the player for being even more of a battle-optimized tryhard than Blue is.
Like it's just funny to me that I roll into the E4 with some combination of a trio of legendary birds, other high BST heavy hitters of my own, and an HM slave or whatever, and have literally caught 90% of my mons only for the sake of Pokedex completion before stuffing them into the PC never to breathe fresh air again, and Oak chooses to scold his grandson instead of me.
It also shouldn't go without saying that much of Blue's team stays pretty consistent over the course of the game. He's probably swapping out his main team less than the average player! Sure, he ditches Raticate, but Pidgeot held on to the very end.
And that kind of gets at my main beef with how gen 1 handles its narrative and themes: it's very much "tell, don't show." And what is shown can often contradict what is told.
Like even if there was something as simple as Oak giving you a less enthusiastic congratulations if you ditched your starter for the final battle, that would be worth a lot imo.
Last edited:
You see, I find Gen 3 extremely archaic.
It's in that weird in-between of being modern enough to have EVs, natures, and enough moves for types to minimally function (for the most part), but it doesn't have the modern split.
Gen 1 has a ton of jank, but it's very unique. So, to me, there's more value in that unique experience than the sterilized version that doesn't even connect to Stadium 1.
FRLG lacking a real battle facility and generally being much less user-friendly for the competitive component than Emerald also means that it has to lean more on its RPG quest side than its competitive side, and even though in a vacuum I'd still take that over RBY, I can totally see why that wouldn't be interesting enough for some.
Yeah I don't disagree with this at all. The games push the whole mindset of "use your favourites, play with honour" but, as you say, there's no real penalty for not doing so. Even in later games where you can actively make your Pokemon unhappy, you're still venerated as a saint who loves and cherishes their Pokemon. The closest you ever get to a rebuke is if you basically don't bother actively catching anything more than a couple of battlers and an HM slave; as you're entering the Hall of Fame the resident professor will evaluate your Pokedex and say "only 7 Pokemon registered? You need to put more effort in" or something.
And that's fine too. Maybe there are lots of players who don't like any of the starters and will happily box them asap in favour of other stuff. That's part of the appeal of the series, you can use whatever you want on your team and it's all fine. The game basically tells you the way it thinks you ought to be playing, but it usually doesn't outright force it outside of certain choice moments. It is presumed that you are doing things the right way - or, I suppose, that whatever you are doing is the right way.
Again, agreed. Partly I think the absence of this is just due to how much less responsive the dialogue in the earlier gens is, which later games have increasingly been better about (examples which come to mind are stuff like how in DPP Rowan will actually acknowledge if you manage to evolve your starter before reaching Sandgem Town or how in BW Cheren will change his dialogue if the player didn't take any damage during their first battle with Bianca - also, fun fact, in BW Cedric Juniper has varying dialogue depending on whether the player has seen a Klink when they first meet him, even though it's impossible not to have seen it because N uses one).
Then again, Oak says "you've grown up so much since you left with [starter]", but that's not a direct endorsement of you using your starter forever. Hell, in one light it could even be read as complimenting you on not having your starter ("well done on outgrowing your Squirtle") though I don't think that's how it's intended.
Stuff like the cutscene in USUM where your starter pops out of its ball in front of the Pokemon League is a good way to reward (well, less reward but certainly encourage) sticking with your starter without railroading things - god knows I've played several of the games enough times that I tossed my starter away early on.
Where did I say SNES or Genesis (Megadrive)?
Manchester United would like their goalposts back…
No, you did. I know of loads of other adults my age who played it for the story and the general catching mechanics.
I've actually grown to dislike the emphasis on the starter and similar when it comes to implementing "win via a bond with your favourite" because it assumes that your favourite is part of a very small pool that GF has picked without your agency. There's no credit in making it to the USUM league with a Vikavolt met on route 1, is the extra 0.5% of gameplay time (and admittedly much more than that in cutscenes) that important?
You know, maybe I should add the Hall to the list of Battle Facilities I really think should come back. Somewhere that openly challenges you to win with your favourite with availability being little object.
You know, maybe I should add the Hall to the list of Battle Facilities I really think should come back. Somewhere that openly challenges you to win with your favourite with availability being little object.
Listen, even as a pixel art enjoyer the Gen 1 games are low-key ugly outside of Yellow, and Yellow still has the jank back sprites. This generation isn't much of a looker.
Also, just to be clear, I was there because I'm 31. Red was my first Pokémon game (might have been my first game period) that I got with my Game Boy Color, I watched the anime on TV and even owned some VHS tapes (I think they're still lying around somewhere), and my family was into collecting the cards for a bit even if none of us actually knew how to play the TCG. I still remember the exact location of the shop where we picked those cards up and bought the Gen 2 games. I do fully understand it, but that doesn't stop me from realizing that a stupidly small inventory is enough of a thorn in my side to not want to touch the games again without planning out a glitch run or something.
Calling Gen 3 archaic while also seemingly ignoring the more archaic elements of Gen 1 that I already mentioned seems a tad hypocritical to me, or at least selective. The Gen 3 games also connect to Colosseum and XD for 3D battling so that's not strictly a point in Gen 1's favor (unless you mean Stadium 1 specifically for some reason?).You see, I find Gen 3 extremely archaic.
It's in that weird in-between of being modern enough to have EVs, natures, and enough moves for types to minimally function (for the most part), but it doesn't have the modern split.
Gen 1 has a ton of jank, but it's very unique. So, to me, there's more value in that unique experience than the sterilized version that doesn't even connect to Stadium 1.
There's nothing wrong with saying you prefer RBY over FRLG, but trying to make an objective-sounding statement about how the former is better is a little dumb lol.
Last edited:
With all the talk about the battles vs cockfighting thing, I'm surprised people didn't bring up arguably the most important aspect of it; Pokémon is, at least in part, a battle shonen. It's in the same vein as things like Dragon Ball or Naruto or Yugioh, and much like those series, you can become friends by fighting, either as allies or proving yourself as worthy rivals. It's not just the trainers. You prove to the Pokémon in the wild you're skilled enough to train them, you fight with them in tough fights to build comradery, it's par for the course for the genre.
This series is no One Piece in terms of world building, that's for sure, especially the yellow rodent's mainline video games. But that is neither here nor there in the grand scheme of things. Being a battle shonen at heart does explain why contests, musicals, and other girly coded things get shafted, even though at least one movie was mandatory in BW2. It's essentially a watered down battle shonen, not just a kodomo. The latter genre is a common assumption about Pokemon in the west that makes people perceive the TV anime as a nothingburger.
Last edited:
Which would make you exactly 1 years old at the release of Red/Blue in the UK. You weren’t here for the Gen 1 phenomenon.
I wasn’t making a critique on whether the back sprites were any good, or the game looked amazing as a whole: I was pointing out that if you’re like me (38 years old) then Pokemon sits in a very specific part of gaming history, coming at a time when everything was either pixel art (handheld) or just heading into the full 3D area on home consoles (PS1, Sega Saturn and N64).
Nostalgia isn’t looking back at a game and saying it was poor for its time - it’s looking back at something you had genuine fun with and wanting to recreate the specific feelings and atmosphere associated with it.
Genuinely, I don’t understand this - maybe it’s because I accept the limitations more than you - when I re-run the games, I am accepting their flaws and limitations and trying to play within those boundaries.
I’m currently doing a run through of LeafGreen having played Red/Blue/Yellow/Gold/Silver/Crystal in that order in the last year. It’s going to be interesting to see if I find anything similar.
Your math is not mathing. I was born in 1991. I'm turning 34 later this year unless I'm very mistaken. I was 7 when I first played Pokemon (North American) and would have been 8 when it came out in Europe. So a 31 year old right now would have been 2 or 3 years younger depending on when their birthday is, which is definitely too young to really appreciate Pokemania but not so young that they couldn't have been playing the game around release; I had a younger cousin who did.
The fuck are you smoking?!? Maybe check your dates and/or math before making such ludicrous statements or trying to No True Scotsman me in the weirdest way possible.
Also, I was near where we keep our VHS tapes when I saw this message, so I pulled out one of the Pokémon ones for posterity. :v
I have played my fair share of retro games, so maybe don't make assumptions on my tolerance levels. I just have little patience for excessive inventory management in particular. Already makes Minecraft difficult for me to stick to and the reason why I don't touch older Fire Emblem games.
1991 to 2000 is 9 years, we’re in 2025 which is 25 more years. I agree, that makes you 34. Which would make you 7 at the time of the NA release (as you say) and likely a perfect age to encounter the TV show, the trading card games and the game boy game.
The other poster stated he was 31.
Let’s go back 31 years which is 1994. Agreed? Pokemon Red/Blue comes out in 1999 in the UK (which was news to me, in my head it was 1998 which I know was the NA release) and 1996 in Japan.
If in UK, he’s 5 years old, if in Japan, he’s 2 years old, if in NA he’s 6.
I think being 5 is just on the cusp as being probably aware enough to take part, in fairness, so you have a point.
The Gameboy wasn't region locked (the only Nintendo handhelds that were were the DSi and 3DS) it's entirely possible you were seeing imported NA copies of the games in the UK in 1998.
So I have a vague memory that I saw my friends playing American copies in 1998 so you may well be right. One kid in my class definitely had Gold/Silver before the rest of us: he had the full Japanese copies.
Please see my post above, but also - sorry for my poor maths.
Note to thread - when old and grey - DRINK COFFEE before posting on Pokemon threads in the early morning!
A shonen like Dragon Ball is observed from the combatants' perspective and focuses on their personal goals, relationships, and desires. Pokemon, Red & Blue specifically, focuses entirely on the perspective of the trainers, not the combatants that those trainers use.
Like a major thing that separates Pokemon from most of its 1990s contemporaries is that your party doesn't really consist of "characters" in the traditional RPG sense. They're just creatures that the player character uses.
Last edited:
Counterpoint: naming your pokemon, evolving them, tailoring their move-sets - they absolutely take on identities and become part of the family. They’re not just creatures we use. I still have my original 1999 Pokemon Red Charizard, my very first Pokemon, for god’s sake…