Removing them is not an option because Game Freak, so it's not exactly counter-intuitive.So, you agree that the features are underdeveloped, but you still want boss characters to use them? That sounds counter intuitive.
Removing them is not an option because Game Freak, so it's not exactly counter-intuitive.So, you agree that the features are underdeveloped, but you still want boss characters to use them? That sounds counter intuitive.
What? Yes, they're underdeveloped, and by having major characters use them it'll give them a reason to put resources into improving and expanding upon them. I don't get how that's counter intuitive.So, you agree that the features are underdeveloped, but you still want boss characters to use them? That sounds counter intuitive.
There are so many other ways to make boss fights harder that are more interesting than boring stat boosts to a pokemon or a move. Gym challenges could utilize specific 'strategies' like weather teams, trick room, stall, you name it. If you think about it, the gym leaders don't even use regular items other than berries. Why not start with that?
But not the will to do either, unfortunately.What? Yes, they're underdeveloped, and by having major characters use them it'll give them a reason to put resources into improving and expanding upon them. I don't get how that's counter intuitive.
Yeah, I think Gym Leaders could improve that way too and they should have all their Pokemon be holding an item to help them (even if it is a Berry). But that's honestly something they could easily do, this is GameFreak we're talking about, a major game developer, they have the people and resources to do both.
As you said, the Gyms are Type-based because the target demographic are kids and its easy to wrap your head around the Type chart. But that doesn't mean the Gym can't use a strategy that Type can use:The core of this issue is related to my frequent statements about the gameplay difference between in-game and post-game/meta-game, that there's still a giant gap between the two. Gym Leaders lacking challenge just plays into that issue.
Giving them megas or z-moves might solve parts of that, at least evening out the toolkits between the player and the CPU. But there could be other solutions. I think it might be interesting to see Gym Leaders built not around types but basic strategies, like a hazard gym or a subsitute-using gym. The stuff that are core parts of the meta-game but barely see the light of regular gameplay, to teach the player in bite size chunks.
Not that solution would be so simple though, as for us on Smogon the game might seem too easy but to a blind player these games can be overwhelming. It's unintuitive to try out pokemon to see which ones work (at least without taking severe time and resource costs), so Gamefreak compensates by dumbing down the difficulty. Remember their key design concept in Pokemon is exploration and discovery first, everything else second.
But to give credit where it's due, Totem Pokemon did give the challenge we needed, just not in a way I expected. While there's something lamentably lost when the challenge comes from the CPU cheating (the auras, 2 vs 1, etc) the battles themselves can be thrilling.
However, Ultrasun/Ultramoon also showed us the dark side of Totem Pokemon, and why they shouldn't be the new solution to "bosses" in pokemon games. The offender being Ultra Necrozma, which despite the hype the battle really only goes two ways: either you abuse some cheap strategies like toxic + protect or Zoroark + foul play, or you somehow overlevel it and overwhelm it by force. It's simply too strong to fight any other way, more a beef gate than a boss that requires critical thinking and strategy.
So maybe gyms do deserve a second chance.
Minibosses is something they should keep for future games. They could use them to teach players some special moves. Say, Trick Room, which is not used by any major NPC in Gen VII.I wanna give a special shoutout to the 'route kahunas', because I feel they get overlooked when talking about this. It's a pretty cool way to make 'normal' route trainers be interesting; by being a challenge you go back for after beating everything else on the route -- they often have better, more varied teams than everyone else and have Z-moves. I feel like you could totally up the ante on them, especially since they're optional.
Z-moves aren't underdeveloped, they're just underutilized in-game. In fact, Z-moves may be the most developed new feature GF has implemented. They filled the entire generic design space (since that design space was so narrow) such that every move has at least one matching Z-move and thus every mon can use Z-moves, and the only further development they can do is move-specific Z-moves.What? Yes, they're underdeveloped, and by having major characters use them it'll give them a reason to put resources into improving and expanding upon them. I don't get how that's counter intuitive.
When I say move/Ability-specific I'm meaning a generic group that multiple Pokemon fall under:Aside: Looking at the move-specific Z-moves, they are exactly what you don't want to do if you're planning on expanding. The current move specific Z-moves are, with a couple exceptions, limited to a combination of a specific move and a specific mon, even when the move isn't a mon's signature move. The exceptions are that all the Tapus can use the Tapu family signature move's Z-move, and the Necrozma fusions can use their respective cover legendary's specific Z-move.
The same problem that happens in Gen 4, 6 and 7.And for a new generation, you do seem to constantly have Genration 1 Pokemon constantly rather then, you know, the Pokemon in the fucking generation you are playing
It was a sequel to Gen I, just took place in another region though you visited Kanto in the second half of the game (and the finale had you facing the protagonist of Gen I).I quite liked Gen 2. It felt like a sequel to Gen 1.
Most of the time it was the opposite problem: Pokemon with room to evolve further getting a mega evolution instead of a much-needed real one.And yeah, a lot of the designs are bad. Gen4 had the same problem, a fully-evolved mon is DONE. The design has been taken to it’s logical conclusion. A further stage beyond the fully-evolved form is very hard to get right, because hopefully it was already right. I don’t even blame the designers for the megas often looking odd, they really didn’t have many options.
I agree if you're talking about DP, but Platinum done a far better job of pushing its new Pokémon and evolutions to the spotlight -- at least as much as RSE. So it's half and half with Gen 4.The same problem that happens in Gen 4, 6 and 7.
That Gen 3 and 5 are the most memorable is not necessarily because they have the best designs (they do have some of the best, but that's a whole different story) but because they gave the new characters a huge spotlight so we can appreciate them. In all other generations (not counting the first one, of course), the new mons are pushed to a sideline.
This so much.Paying such attention to Gen 1 throughout the whole series gets a bit tiring, though. Gen 7 gets a pass because of the 20 year anniversary thing, but new mons for new regions was one of the reasons I liked Gen 5 so much.
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 itRandom Dude from some forum said:I like pokemon solely due to nostalgia. As such, I only care about the original slate.
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.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
Ok lets find out where that crazy quote is from: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