Yeah, I agree with most of what people have said. As far as random encounters go, Pokemon isn't really bad. In later games, they've even taken to having a healer midway through long areas like mountains, cave systems, and other places, so I think random encounters aren't awful. And if you have a Pokemon with the Run Away ability or there are held items you can have the first memeber of your party hold in case you need to escape. There are a lot of ways to avoid random encounters entirely, which typically isn't an option in most games, aside from trying to run away.
-
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
Yeah, I agree with most of what people have said. As far as random encounters go, Pokemon isn't really bad. In later games, they've even taken to having a healer midway through long areas like mountains, cave systems, and other places, so I think random encounters aren't awful. And if you have a Pokemon with the Run Away ability or there are held items you can have the first memeber of your party hold in case you need to escape. There are a lot of ways to avoid random encounters entirely, which typically isn't an option in most games, aside from trying to run away.
Having a healer is all well and good but it doesn't take away how annoying long routes are with so many encounters D: (Sinnoh I'm looking at you).
See, what bothers me about random encounters is two things:
No, this is on a level of "why does stuff randomly happen with no warning for no reason," which isn't a genre specific thing. It's just...dumb.
I am aware that Pokemon is not the only game that does random encounters. I know that other games do it too. But I don't like those games at least partially because they do random encounters. And I don't like that these games do random encounters for the same reasons.
And I get that in the past they did this because they just didn't have the processing power for real-time overworld enemy movement. But that was the past. This is the present. Plus we see some pokemon on the overworld map anyway, so it's just downright inconsistent.
I have a similar issue with how Gen VI randomly warps you into a pocket dimension every time you do a pokemon battle. The sprite-based games at least had the excuse of "well we painstakingly created this sprited territory, we wouldn't be able to rotate it around without drawing it all over again, and ain't nobody got time for that." I'm a spriter myself, so I totally get that.
But now you've already created a 3D environment for us to run around and fight in, so why not use that as the backdrop? Because it's too cramped? Then don't design the world map in a way that makes it too cramped. Hopefully Gen VII changes this.
And like, it's not like what I'm saying can't be done. The Hyperdimension Neptunia series has visible enemies walking around the map, and also has you fight them in the same room as the overworld map. And I'm sure other RPGs do it too.
As is, this aspect of Pokemon is borderline immersion breaking for me.
- You can't actually see the thing you're going to battle until you're actually battling it. I want to know what I'm up against before I decide to engage in combat.
- Am I really supposed to believe that these things just randomly spawn into existence from walking into some "tall" grass? Some of these guys are significantly taller than the player, who is taller than the grass, this doesn't make any sense.
No, this is on a level of "why does stuff randomly happen with no warning for no reason," which isn't a genre specific thing. It's just...dumb.
I am aware that Pokemon is not the only game that does random encounters. I know that other games do it too. But I don't like those games at least partially because they do random encounters. And I don't like that these games do random encounters for the same reasons.
And I get that in the past they did this because they just didn't have the processing power for real-time overworld enemy movement. But that was the past. This is the present. Plus we see some pokemon on the overworld map anyway, so it's just downright inconsistent.
I have a similar issue with how Gen VI randomly warps you into a pocket dimension every time you do a pokemon battle. The sprite-based games at least had the excuse of "well we painstakingly created this sprited territory, we wouldn't be able to rotate it around without drawing it all over again, and ain't nobody got time for that." I'm a spriter myself, so I totally get that.
But now you've already created a 3D environment for us to run around and fight in, so why not use that as the backdrop? Because it's too cramped? Then don't design the world map in a way that makes it too cramped. Hopefully Gen VII changes this.
And like, it's not like what I'm saying can't be done. The Hyperdimension Neptunia series has visible enemies walking around the map, and also has you fight them in the same room as the overworld map. And I'm sure other RPGs do it too.
As is, this aspect of Pokemon is borderline immersion breaking for me.
Honestly, Pokemon is waaaaaaaaaaaaay more fair on random encounters than other games that use them. Not only is their an item usable from the beginning that gets rid of them entirely, but unless it's a cave or a water route the "random encounter area" is limited to obvious and usually avoidable hazard zones (aka the tall grass).
Sure you have to buy repels and initially the game didn't make using them super easy (preB2W2 didn't have the "use another repel?" function), but if we're comparing to most games with random encounters (early final fantasy, Mother 1/Earthbound Beginnings, etc.) then we were getting pretty lucky.
Plus wild pokemon aren't really a random encounter the way most RPG's use them, since they aren't really meant to be fought more as an opprotunity to catch pokemon (I mean, you can grind exp off of them but it's really slow). That's why it's super easy to avoid or run from them. The true "encounters" are the trainers you face which aren't random at all.
Sure you have to buy repels and initially the game didn't make using them super easy (preB2W2 didn't have the "use another repel?" function), but if we're comparing to most games with random encounters (early final fantasy, Mother 1/Earthbound Beginnings, etc.) then we were getting pretty lucky.
Plus wild pokemon aren't really a random encounter the way most RPG's use them, since they aren't really meant to be fought more as an opprotunity to catch pokemon (I mean, you can grind exp off of them but it's really slow). That's why it's super easy to avoid or run from them. The true "encounters" are the trainers you face which aren't random at all.
Like?
Delta Episode was a lot more interesting than any of the plot in HGSS IMO. All the cute references to the originals, but changing the stuff that needed changing and getting rid of annoying things. Intertwining the plot with XY. Fleshing out Devon, the evil teams, Sea Mauville and Mauville City with a lot more personality. Making sure content from the newer games like the Icy Rock found its way in. National dex as part of the maingame.
I love HGSS, don't get me wrong, but people talk about ORAS as unworthy successors because HGSS introduced so much stuff whereas ORAS felt stripped down, and I don't get that. No gym leader rematches kinda sucks and I wish GBA sounds were a thing, but otherwise I thought ORAS blew HGSS out of the water in every way.
Then again, I also loved XY, really enjoy the presentation style of the 3DS games and have never cared for the Battle Frontier or Pokemon following you in the overworld. As an ubers player, by contrast, the ORAS postgame was candyland for me, and soaring in the sky was amazing. I guess I'd summarise by saying that I liked HGSS because they felt like final versions of the gen 1 and 2 games, whereas I loved ORAS as a gen 6 game and the nostalgia was just added flavour.
Yeah I mostly agree here, although I did like Pokemon following you as it felt like a really neat touch. I especially loved how Pokemon had various responses depending on where you are and what you're doing as well. After playing AS, I played through Ruby and the amount of stuff that was fleshed out became quite apparent (far more speaking lines for the evil team, for example). Also found it interesting how they actually increased the levels of Gym Leaders, which makes me think they might've been compensating for the new Exp. Share introduced in Gen 6.
Here comes another, one I realized yesterday: I'd actually like to see both versions of the Exp. Share in the same game. The party-wide version is fine if you want to skip the boooooring grinding process... but it's actually more tedious than the equippable version when it comes to EV training weaker Pokemon. One can make the careless mistake of EV-training Pokemon that don't want EVs in that stat, while the equippable version keeps this much more under control, given only two Pokemon may get EVs in a battle, instead of up to six.
Last edited:
Actually, only Winona's, Tate & Liza's and Wallace's pokemon had their levels slighly increased ( and probably only because there were new sidequests that weren't present in the original games [like Lati@s'], which would inevitably grab you a couple of additional level ups ) . Everyone else's were decreased by a level or two, so basically 5/8 of all gyms were made easier.
Well, since we're already at it: I don't actually mind how the newest core games can be completely trivialized by the new Exp. Share mechanic. If I want to pour some effort into it I can always just turn it off and do everything old school, but most of the time after I'm done beating the game for the 1st time and I want to play the game again for whatever reason, I just wanna breeze through it without any mindless grinding.
Really, anyone who says the games are now too easy should just turn the Exp. Share off during the main campaign at least once. You'll realize that the difficulty curve isn't as easy to keep up with without it. Even XY could give you trouble and force you to use at least a minimal amount of strategy instead of just stomping everything with uberstrong pokemon.
Last edited:
Name it EV Share, imo.
Oh...right, well, there goes me thinking they cared about difficulty.
I can see where this comes from. The Exp Share is alright as a concept (EXP to the whole party) but it should be changed to somewhere around 50% of EXP rather than the current amount. You can turn on the Exp Share, do no grinding and minimal trainers and still breeze through the game.
Thing is there isn't an inbetween...well ok, for most Smogon goers, it's going to be easy no matter what you do, but for the standard casual player, having the Exp Share on might make the game to easy, but having it off might make it to hard / make it a grindfest. A good RPG is able to keep the challenge up while not making it impossible, to the point where you have to dedicate play-time to grinding. As I said before, the Exp Share can work, but not in the sheer amount of EXP rewarded.
I personally think it would be easier if you could just select which Pokemon you want to be affected by the Exp. Share. That way you keep it to one item (and keep it as a Key Item), if you want to level-up your entire team you can, or if you want to do it the traditional way you can select only one or two Pokemon as well. If there's a Pokemon you want to EV train later you can have it so it's the only Pokemon not to gain experience.
My issue with the new Exp. Share is just how much experience it gives out. Now I like how they made it that if the Pokemon was sent out into battle they receive 100% of the experience they would have, makes sense. But as for the Pokemon who got experience from the Exp. Share? I think depending on how many Pokemon you have the Exp. Share affecting should depend on how much experience they should get: 1 = 50%, 2 = 25%, 3 = 16.6%, 4 = 12.5%, 5 = 10%. It would also give you another reason not to have all Pokemon selected with my above idea.
The games are really not that difficult with the Exp. Share All turned off. The level curve is better, but, in particular, the incredibly small numbers of Pokemon your opponents have -- even if some of the individual Pokemon are formidable -- makes most of it a joke. Another thing that seems to get totally overlooked is that if you use two Pokemon against one foe, both of them get 100 percent of the available experience now, so whether the Exp. Share is on or off there's now tons of extra experience available.
I agree that the new version of it should stay available -- in the postgame, if nothing else -- with the old version reintroduced.
I agree that the new version of it should stay available -- in the postgame, if nothing else -- with the old version reintroduced.
I've actually been enjoying the new exp. share.
Don't get me wrong, unless you do something to limit it or turn it off the thing breaks all difficulty into itty bitty pieces (and if you're a veteran pokemon player, their wasn't much to begin with aka see one of my mega posts on difficulty/newbies) But I found my own work around.
Instead of a team of 6 I have a rotating team of 12, pulling in and out so that essentially everyone is getting 1/2 the experience. It managed to keep my levels down, only about 1 or 2 above the local route trainers (typical with a 6 mon run in an older game). It also gave me a lot more freedom in teambuilding, letting me experiment with pokemon I'd normally never touch.
Not to say it still wasn't easy. Having 12 'mons meant I could tailor the whole active squad to meet a challenge (like stacking up water types for the fire gym). But it wasn't oh-so-broken either.
But the bottom line for me was using a bunch of monsters I'd normally have to drop or leave for a replay, which made the game more fun for me (although I understand how that wouldn't be fun for everyone).
Don't get me wrong, unless you do something to limit it or turn it off the thing breaks all difficulty into itty bitty pieces (and if you're a veteran pokemon player, their wasn't much to begin with aka see one of my mega posts on difficulty/newbies) But I found my own work around.
Instead of a team of 6 I have a rotating team of 12, pulling in and out so that essentially everyone is getting 1/2 the experience. It managed to keep my levels down, only about 1 or 2 above the local route trainers (typical with a 6 mon run in an older game). It also gave me a lot more freedom in teambuilding, letting me experiment with pokemon I'd normally never touch.
Not to say it still wasn't easy. Having 12 'mons meant I could tailor the whole active squad to meet a challenge (like stacking up water types for the fire gym). But it wasn't oh-so-broken either.
But the bottom line for me was using a bunch of monsters I'd normally have to drop or leave for a replay, which made the game more fun for me (although I understand how that wouldn't be fun for everyone).
I'm not sure this opinion is relevant (disregarding the popularity), but I think Pokémon doesn't have decent clerics for the main story, which mostly focuses on Singles. Such an in-game role would save plenty of money from being spent on healing items. Many RPGs have quite a few prominent healing classes, such as White Mages; they usually have more practical use than consumable items. On the other hand, this monster collector mostly has Chansey / Blissey and Audino, but the first two act more like walls. Walls without offensive presence have a bad time during the campaign.
I think the problem is a slightly different - Pokémon does have decent clerics, but the story isn't tuned for neither clerics nor walls.
To progress in the game, you need to gain experience by participating in battles where the opponent's Pokémon are knocked out, without being defeated yourself. Since the battles usually are one-on-one, a successful Pokémon needs to be able to knock out the opponent by itself. A defensive Pokémon can take hits all day, but to progress it has to KO the opponent. Offensive presence will always trump defensive endurance, because it isn't enough to cripple the opponent - you have to knock it out as well. You may win a battle by PP stalling, paralyzing the opponent, laying entry hazards and set up favourable field conditions, but unless you can bring that HP bar down to zero while your Pokémon is still active, you won't gain any experience - that is, no progession. Moreover, such battles tend to last for many, many turns, which draws out the gameplay progression to a crawl. You will also need to replenish HP and PP often, making such strategies very inefficient.
As for clerics, the problem is that there usually is nothing for them to do. There are rarely any team mates to heal or boost, since to do that, they need to be on the field at the same time - an impossibility in Singles. Rather than being clerical, they too need to be geared towards defeating an opponent to progress in the game. Worse still, they need to have progressed "to the max" to ever be useful in their intended role.
Yeah, that problem is more like it. Knocking out an NPC's Pokémon has more priority over taking as many hits as possible. Clerics will have a hard time progressing if a lot of progress is required. In addition, they seem to require defenses more than speed, and Pokémon would rather defeat opponents as soon as possible. As such, these kinds of Pokémon require investment in EVs, which is quite time-consuming.
In addition, due to the type system, offensive Pokemon with decent defensive stats don't need a cleric as you just send the one that resists the opponent's Pokemon and they can usually tank (and since many in-game trainers align themselves to a certain type that's easy to exploit). This is even true in Pokemon games where you would thing a cleric could be useful: the Pokemon Colosseum games. In Colosseum most battles are Double Battles and since the point of the game is catching Shadow Pokemon (who can hit your non-Shadow Pokemon hard with super effective Shadow moves) you need to delay the battles longer than usual. Now more defensive Pokemon were able to standout, not only to tank hits but their weak offense stats meant they were also better at chip damaging, but still healing wasn't a major concern unless that defensive Pokemon came with a healing move. Heck, the type chart comes back into play as you could use your own Shadow Pokemon to tank your opponent's Shadow Pokemon attack while also doing chip damage.
Another thing to remember is that the Pokemon battling system is made to be used competitively so its more orderly and rarely deviates from battle to battle. Other RPGs aren't so they can make some battles drastically different like having a boss able to make themselves invincible or do massive, multi-targeting attacks which is why you'd need a cleric to constantly be healing. Also a lot of RPGs only have characters like the cleric able to buff characters or afflict a status ailment on the opponent, meanwhile in Pokemon a Pokemon can buff themselves or afflict status ailments. It's where the common complaint about Pokemon stems from: people claiming Pokemon is the same game (ignoring the added depth each generation adds to the battling system (and making a Pokemon well rounded battler/competitive)) because every battle looks the same: an equal amount of Pokemon on either side of a field taking turns to whack each other.
Another thing to remember is that the Pokemon battling system is made to be used competitively so its more orderly and rarely deviates from battle to battle. Other RPGs aren't so they can make some battles drastically different like having a boss able to make themselves invincible or do massive, multi-targeting attacks which is why you'd need a cleric to constantly be healing. Also a lot of RPGs only have characters like the cleric able to buff characters or afflict a status ailment on the opponent, meanwhile in Pokemon a Pokemon can buff themselves or afflict status ailments. It's where the common complaint about Pokemon stems from: people claiming Pokemon is the same game (ignoring the added depth each generation adds to the battling system (and making a Pokemon well rounded battler/competitive)) because every battle looks the same: an equal amount of Pokemon on either side of a field taking turns to whack each other.
I don't think you should ever ban the use of something on a suspect ladder.
Like let's pretend that Florges was the most broken thing in UU, ever.
If you ban the use of Florges on the suspect ladder, how are you supposed to find certain strategies and techniques that can counter or check her? The desire to ban something without trying to adapt to its presence in the meta while suspecting it seems so silly. Like it's your way of saying, "Yeah, we're just gonna ban this, but we have this suspect test thing to do first..."
Also, I have to say I think Judge-A-Pokemon and pretty much any article with Smogon's panelists are a waste of space. Like does anybody REALLY want to hear these opinions? It's not like these people are big deals. Being an auth on PS doesn't make you somebody everybody in the Smogon community wants to read your plain opinions about. I just think its silly.
Like let's pretend that Florges was the most broken thing in UU, ever.
If you ban the use of Florges on the suspect ladder, how are you supposed to find certain strategies and techniques that can counter or check her? The desire to ban something without trying to adapt to its presence in the meta while suspecting it seems so silly. Like it's your way of saying, "Yeah, we're just gonna ban this, but we have this suspect test thing to do first..."
Also, I have to say I think Judge-A-Pokemon and pretty much any article with Smogon's panelists are a waste of space. Like does anybody REALLY want to hear these opinions? It's not like these people are big deals. Being an auth on PS doesn't make you somebody everybody in the Smogon community wants to read your plain opinions about. I just think its silly.
Orange Islands isn't really for competitive discussion
Does it say "In-game unpopular opinions?"
I doubt that there's such a thread with this topic in said competitive discussions, so I just dumped it here.
I listen to some music and come back to this:
$0.02
I think that this is so users can experience a meta without the Pokémon in question. For instance, if everyone is using Choice Specs Pawniard to check Florges, then is the meta better without the need for Choice Specs Pawniard on every team?
I personally enjoy Judge-A-Pokémon because it's cool to have people share their opinions on why they like/dislike a certain Pokémon. Interviews with staff members less so (but then again, where else would that type of thing go?) because you kind of have to know the staff member in question to appreciate the article.
$0.02
Okay then...
Anyway, while I'm here, here's something I've been thinking about due to it coming up on my Facebook page recently: I hate the Ash coma theory.
It's an absolute chore to read, and that wouldn't even be too bad if it was at least interesting. As it stands, it's convoluted, boring, and pretty much the epitome of an epileptic tree. I understand that not all fan theories have to be backed up perfectly by canon (say, for instance, the legendary beasts were originally eeveelutions theory), but the Ash coma theory is just too ridiculous for its own good. At least with the other theory I mentioned, while it may not be backed up by canon, you can at least see where people are coming from when they talk about it. You can see why people would make the connection between the legendary beasts and the original three eeveelutions. The theory actually sounds somewhat plausible. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the Ash coma theory, at least, not to me. The Ash coma theory just seems like it was made to be "dark" and "edgy," and make you go "omg childhood ruined!"
In general, I hate when people try to take innocent things that are for children and twist them to be more "adult." Not to say pokemon can't occasionally be dark, but it never (especially the anime) would go that dark. Older fans of pokemon just try to justify Ash never aging/progressing with his journey when the truth is, the only justification is that the show is not meant for them. As much as I would love to see Ash achieve his dreams, I understand that Ash was not a character that was meant to grow up with me. He was meant to be a relatable, fun, good role model for children. Not to say people can't be upset about this, but the truth of the matter is that the writers of the pokemon anime just aren't taking your feelings into account. The show is for kids, and it's gonna stay that way. And maybe someone is gonna tell me that the Ash coma theory was just meant to be a creepypasta, but as I said earlier, I'm just against the idea of taking things meant for kids and trying to make them unnecessarily dark.
The entirety of the Ash coma theory is stupid, but some highlights include:
tldr Ash coma theory is dumb
Anyway, while I'm here, here's something I've been thinking about due to it coming up on my Facebook page recently: I hate the Ash coma theory.
It's an absolute chore to read, and that wouldn't even be too bad if it was at least interesting. As it stands, it's convoluted, boring, and pretty much the epitome of an epileptic tree. I understand that not all fan theories have to be backed up perfectly by canon (say, for instance, the legendary beasts were originally eeveelutions theory), but the Ash coma theory is just too ridiculous for its own good. At least with the other theory I mentioned, while it may not be backed up by canon, you can at least see where people are coming from when they talk about it. You can see why people would make the connection between the legendary beasts and the original three eeveelutions. The theory actually sounds somewhat plausible. Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the Ash coma theory, at least, not to me. The Ash coma theory just seems like it was made to be "dark" and "edgy," and make you go "omg childhood ruined!"
In general, I hate when people try to take innocent things that are for children and twist them to be more "adult." Not to say pokemon can't occasionally be dark, but it never (especially the anime) would go that dark. Older fans of pokemon just try to justify Ash never aging/progressing with his journey when the truth is, the only justification is that the show is not meant for them. As much as I would love to see Ash achieve his dreams, I understand that Ash was not a character that was meant to grow up with me. He was meant to be a relatable, fun, good role model for children. Not to say people can't be upset about this, but the truth of the matter is that the writers of the pokemon anime just aren't taking your feelings into account. The show is for kids, and it's gonna stay that way. And maybe someone is gonna tell me that the Ash coma theory was just meant to be a creepypasta, but as I said earlier, I'm just against the idea of taking things meant for kids and trying to make them unnecessarily dark.
The entirety of the Ash coma theory is stupid, but some highlights include:
"After the beginning episodes, the series is the result of Ash’s subconscious mind fulfilling his desires as well as attempting to escape reality. Should Ash realize he’s in a coma, he would wake up and suffer brain damage, so he must take down all of his mental barriers one by one." - Mental issues literally have nothing to do with brain damage.
"Brock is Ash’s repressed sexuality. Ash fell into the coma a virgin and, as such, needed an outlet for his growing sexual frustrations. However, since he can never experience sex, Brock must never succeed. Brock’s stay with Professor Ivy was an attempt by Ash’s mind to suppress his sexuality." - Ash is ten years old wtf
"Pikachu represents Ash’s humanity. This explains the episodes where they get separated and Ash desperately wants to find him, even to the point of working with Team Rocket (aspects of himself he would never normally associate with), but for some reason cannot." - Pikachu is Ash's best friend, of course he'd be desperate to find him when he's lost.
"Ash couldn’t evolve Pikachu because that would mean challenging his concept of who he was, which was something he wasn’t comfortable with while still working through his original issues." - Ash is completely fine with evolving Pikachu. It's Pikachu that doesn't want to evolve.
"The Pokémon in Ash’s team, however, serve the purpose of displaying his issues and aspects of himself. For example, Charmander represents his sex drive (not his sexuality, like Brock). At first it’s a cute, easy thing to control, but eventually becomes a raging inferno of disobedience since Ash has no real understanding of his sexuality (thus has no way to vent or keep it in check)." - ASH. IS. TEN.
"Brock is Ash’s repressed sexuality. Ash fell into the coma a virgin and, as such, needed an outlet for his growing sexual frustrations. However, since he can never experience sex, Brock must never succeed. Brock’s stay with Professor Ivy was an attempt by Ash’s mind to suppress his sexuality." - Ash is ten years old wtf
"Pikachu represents Ash’s humanity. This explains the episodes where they get separated and Ash desperately wants to find him, even to the point of working with Team Rocket (aspects of himself he would never normally associate with), but for some reason cannot." - Pikachu is Ash's best friend, of course he'd be desperate to find him when he's lost.
"Ash couldn’t evolve Pikachu because that would mean challenging his concept of who he was, which was something he wasn’t comfortable with while still working through his original issues." - Ash is completely fine with evolving Pikachu. It's Pikachu that doesn't want to evolve.
"The Pokémon in Ash’s team, however, serve the purpose of displaying his issues and aspects of himself. For example, Charmander represents his sex drive (not his sexuality, like Brock). At first it’s a cute, easy thing to control, but eventually becomes a raging inferno of disobedience since Ash has no real understanding of his sexuality (thus has no way to vent or keep it in check)." - ASH. IS. TEN.
tldr Ash coma theory is dumb