-
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.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Unpopular opinions
- Thread starter antemortem
- Start date
That's pretty interesting. It actually makes it sadder for me that IVs ultimately fail to portray that aspect to the vast majority of Pokemon players that even know what IVs are in the first place. It just reinforces my believe that it should be changed to something that not only succeeds at creating that diversity, but also is respected in the same way by the community.
Maybe it just shouldn't be something that impacts game mechanics? We've started a new trend of regional variants, but maybe what we really need is more cosmetic variants like Spinda's spots? There's no shortage of fan art of different Pokemon aesthetic features. It's a ton of work, but it would succeed so much more if what made Pokemon different were the small cosmetic details on their bodies. Stuff like this for example:
https://68.media.tumblr.com/38feaec406fca440cd3377c0d17304d7/tumblr_o5geil3aXI1rjenv2o1_500.jpg
That's... never going to happen in the community. The community is generally only interested in the very best and most optimal. Diversity is not valued highly because competitive players want to give themselves as much of an edge or even playing field as possible.
Then again, most competitive players here use the Pokemon Showdown simulator, which lets you build whatever team you want in minutes. But that could be viewed as being because if the metagame shifts and new natures or moves are required you're SOL on cart. (or the new generation comes out and ALL your old Poke pals are now basically useless because they aren't native to the new generation. Plus a couple of old useless moves got a buff and are super useful now *cough* Knock Off and Defog *cough*)
I quite generally agree with everything you've said on the topic here -- and especially your first part about how just about every other game series does try to change something fundamental about it each main game. Which segways into my next big unpopular opinion...
I love the world of Pokémon, I love the concepts of it, and I love (most) of the Pokémon as well. But the gameplay is archaic and greatly shows its age as time has gone on and the rest of the RPG genre has found interesting ways to change and innovate while Pokémon only tacks on a couple of gimmicks which - while I am actually a fan of in and of themselves - do not and could not solve the fundamental problems with the gameplay.
So, I want to see Pokémon's base mechanics and systems to be stripped down and get a complete overhaul even greater than the move from Gen 2 to Gen 3.
Once again, I love Pokémon's world and setting and the rest of it. I wouldn't change any of that -- I'm not even suggesting a reboot, and while there are certain Pokémon I would like to just not see ever again, I wouldn't dare remove any of them and at most I'd say a Gen 5 or 3 situation where your initial selection of Pokémon is limited would be as far as that aspect should go.
But I'm sorry, very very little of Pokémon's fundamental gameplay if at all has changed since 1996. Despite all their attempts to improve the pacing and add things on which makes it a little better, Pokémon at its core is hurt by not being brave to change up the mechanics enough to make each game feel truly different.
To illustrate an example, I played through Metroid Prime Trilogy lately. Brilliant set of games, highly recommend if you're into a mix of FPS and exploration and a great sense of progression. But one of the best things about these games is that despite having the same basic premise to its gameplay, there was still something fundamental at their core that made each different from the other. They didn't just add new power-ups on - though this is also something they did nicely - they completely changed how you played. Metroid Prime 2 introduced a mirror world system - a dark world that's almost a replica of the world you were just travelling through, which just about doubles the amount of world you had to explore and forcing you to figure out which one you had to traverse to progress. This is present throughout the majority of the game and forms the core of its gameplay; ensuring that it's a very different experience from Prime 1 which focused on just having the one world. Metroid Prime 3 introduced both the Hypermode system; wherein you enter a state that drains your health and risks game over for an extremely increased damage output, and the Gunship; allowing you for the first time in the series to not only call in your ship for missile strikes or landing to save at certain points in the game, but also letting you travel between different planets which becomes important later for backtracking for items and using something you find on another planet to help your progress on another.
And you can see this with multiple other franchises, even if you just stay in Nintendo's wheelhouse -- Mario Sunshine is very different to Mario Galaxy is very different to Mario Odyssey; Zelda Twilight Princess is very different to Zelda Skyward Sword is very different to Zelda Breath of the Wild, etc. All of them manage to strike an incredible balance between what people come to expect from these franchises and what is essential about their gameplay, but also introduce some sort of major fundamental mechanics change to make each one feel different. This is absolutely risky, I won't lie: some of the games I've just mentioned were not well received at all. Mario Sunshine, Metroid Prime 2, Skyward Sword; they're all treated as black sheep within their franchises. But then, you've got Odyssey, you've got Breath of the Wild. Brilliant games that are universally praised and loved and wouldn't have been if they didn't try to change things up. They wouldn't have been beloved if they didn't take risks.
Pokémon does not even attempt to take risks like this. It'll introduce new mechanics, sure; but they don't really change how you play. They just stack on top of the same system you've already had and hence don't really feel that big a difference from the previous game. This leaves us with a series that we can predict to be generally good with each instalment, but they key word is predict. We know exactly what to expect from each game as they all use the same cookie-cutter formula and only adds things on instead of changing what it is. They're fun, but they're all the same basic game when you get right down to it -- something that's only an asset for assuring us that transferring our old Pokémon will still be possible, but come on; we've seen them find a way to transfer from Gen 1 to Gen 6. They could handle transferring from Gen 7 to a completely new set of mechanics and a completely new game.
I will admit, there was one time they changed things up enough about the system -- Pokémon Colosseum. This is the one time they took risks and one of the reasons it's my favourite game. Instead of there being wild Pokémon, there's instead a limited amount you have to steal from other trainers. You've got the Shadow Pokémon system, a system which not only brings a bit of variety to the opponents you fight; which not only gives you an extra challenge on top of raising your Pokémon in general; but perfectly meshes with the morals of the series. The more you fight by this Pokémon's side, the more affection you give it, the more you spend time with it? The more its heart opens up and the more the shadow guage goes down to return it to normal. It's a great way of strengthening the core of the franchise while also adding in something fundamentally new and unique. And that's not even getting into other points about it; like how the fixed level before depleting the shadow guage means you not only fight a higher level opponent at first, but that before this guage is depleted it's difficult to improve in any way. The Shadow Pokémon system has its flaws, but there were a lot of brilliant things about it that truly shook up the gameplay.
We've had over 20 years of this same system. A milestone the Pokémon company seems to want to celebrate and revere, and mark it by... not changing anything and instead giving out some Legendary Pokémon events for the 50th time. I want to love this series. I continue to love this series. But more and more I'm finding that I'm just not enjoying the gameplay as much as I used to, but I'm simply putting up with it because I love the new Pokémon. And I do! I love cool new creatures like Decidueye and Mimikyu and Minior. The Alolan Pokémon idea - one which has flaws in execution, but I've ranted enough about that - was also wonderful and prompted me to love these old Pokémon in a new way. And you know what? Maybe that's what I want. Maybe I've had enough of Pokémon's gameplay and I want to see a new twist on it. Something added to its core which makes it completely different to play. Something that injects new love and ideas for once into something that's been around for 20-odd years. I want Pokémon Gameplay Alolan Form.
I'm not saying anything quite as drastic as, say, changing Pokémon's entire genre from RPG to Platformer or FPS or something. At the end of the day, capturing Pokémon does give a unique spin on the RPG genre and I don't want to see that go away. But that's the only big spin it's had on the RPG genre and it's been there since the beginning. I need to see it evolve, I need to see it do what other RPGs and franchises have done and just have no hesitation in ripping down the old system and starting from scratch, taking what worked best about the old and re-inventing it with fresh new ideas for new generations. Give us a new game.
I would contest that claim, at least to some degree. I suppose most competitive players don't do that, but most players don't play competitively. I feel pretty confident in saying that most players don't catch a dozen Pokemon of a given species on their in-game runs and compare which one has the best nature and stat spread either. Because these mechanics and their effects are inherently hidden from the player, most players probably don't even know they exist beyond this vague notion that two Pokemon of a given species won't turn out the exact same way.
Does this mean those players actually value that mechanic? I don't know, maybe not. But likewise, it doesn't seem so farfetched to me that for a single player experience, players might appreciate that using the same Pokemon in different runs can give them somewhat different experiences or that when they and their friends use the same Pokemon, they still won't necessarily have the same experience with it.
The vast majority probably just doesn't care, maybe says "oh hey, that's neat" when an NPC mentions it and moves on without being particularly bothered by it one way or the other.
Very interesting, indeed. I think it highlights a problem Pokémon has had since its inception: the competitive side of the game is starkly at odds with its casual side. Its mechanics and message seem almost antithetical when you examine them closely.
The statement from Ohmori falls under the casual side of things. The parameters of IVs and EVs are coded in to make each Pokémon unique and personal. Like a dog, whose traits you can't choose when you adopt it. He literally says:
Yet in a competitive setting, this "soullessness" is exactly what you have to do. Min-maxing these parameters is practically a requirement, since doing so nets you a big advantage, to the point that not doing so puts you at a major disadvantage. The game says "use your favourites" in its story, and "in order to win, you have to optimize" in its gameplay.
A game with such a mixed message seems poorly suited for a competitive scene, and maybe it was never meant to have one. Play with your friends, accept that your Pokémon are different, maybe you have some Pokémon that are better than his, and some that are worse than his, and it evens out in the end. But at the same time, the whole point of the game is "to be a Pokémon master". At the end of every game, the player goes to the Elite Four to become the best that ever was. It emphasizes winning in every aspects of its gameplay.
And TPCi continues the confusion by actively endorsing competitive play with the Video Game Championships. They are paying out money to the best Pokémon trainer, and the mechanics of the game implies that this necessarily will be a trainer who has gone through the "soulless" min-maxing of parameters. The prospect of winning significant sums of real money encourages players to learn parameter manipulation. The best trainer is all but guaranteed to be one who exploits the system intended to create "unique" Pokémon, tweaking the parameters to make his Pokémon as optimal as the game allows. And so will the next few hundred people below this winning trainer, since it's not exactly a secret that these parameters can be manipulated.
You see, it's been a while since Game Freak realized people were doing this, and they have actively embraced ways to make it easier. Guaranteeing some perfect stats for Legendaries, implementing breeding mechanics and Synchronize tricks and Super Training and Bottle Caps to speed up the process. Parameter tweaking is openly endorsed in the latter generations.
Yet strangely, the notion still persists that these parameters need to be variable and random in the first place. Ohmori gave that interview in 2014, at the tail end of Gen VI. It's not like competitive Pokémon was a new thing back then. Even in the era of officially sanctioned and sponsored competitive tournaments, the message is still "every Pokémon is unique" and "deciding which Pokémon you want based on data is soulless". You can breed for perfect stats faster than ever before, but it still remains vital that those stats must be bred for, and not just simply obtained at the press of a button.
As such, we're left with an almost schizophrenic game series. The casual message is undercut by the existence of mechanics catered solely to the competitive scene, and the competitive aspects are muddled behind layers of tedium created to preserve the casual message. Perfection is on one hand presented as unnatural, but on the other hand certain mechanics exist solely to facilitate it. Randomness is implemented to provide variety, yet randomness is also treated as an obstacle to overcome. You can't enter a menu to pick the parameters you want, but you're allowed to retry the RNG as many times as you need for them to appear. You have to throw dice to end up at your end result, but you can load them slightly.
In conclusion, it seems like TPCi tries to ride two horses, and end up falling off both of them. The casual message is constantly undercut by endorsing a need to optimize, yet optimization is made such a terrible chore that it mostly tests players' patience over their skills or knowledge. The mechanics are bad for both competitive play and casual play. This refusal to make concessions to either the casual or competitive side (sacrificing either the variety or the competitive scene) is not doing the franchise any favours. In effect, it sabotages its own message of diversity, while actively encouraging cheating or unofficial competitive scenes such as Smogon.
Not to mention that the message of "try to win with your favorites" will be severely undercut if your favorites happen to be either Pokemon that are outclassed in basically every way... or are mythical Pokemon that are never allowed to participate in official tournaments. (and if your favorite is Phione, you're SOL on both fronts, being a mythical that's outclassed by even non legendary Water types, let alone the mythical it's bred from)
I doubt that Pokemon was ever meant to be competitive. At least not initially. But it happened anyway, and Game Freak hasn't exactly been very good at catering to it. They've tried, but it still ends up feeling like one step forward and one step back.
If someone's favorite is Phione they deserve to live in disappointment.
Call For Change:
My issue with asking them to change the game is this: change it how? How can they change the gameplay in a way it keeps the Pokemon feel, remain competitive (because like it or not that is something that needs to be considered, a lot of Pokemon's popularity is thanks to its metagame), and is significant enough that it will effect you're play experience?
Kurona, you bring up Colosseum as an example of Pokemon changing the formula... except it really didn't. The battle mechanics are the same, it's just a different scenario. And for a side series that scenario works perfectly fine, but I don't think it'll transition that well into the core series (except maybe ONE aspect, which I'll get into). Now, I would love if they made another Colosseum game, bring back Orre (or maybe another region in a similar situation, though with Orre we can see how things have changed)... but don't make it a core series game. Colosseum was able to have a darker atmosphere and experiment with ideas such as stealing other trainer's Pokemon (and limiting your Pokemon choice to mainly other trainer Pokemon) because it wasn't a core series title which is made to attract a wider audience. Not saying the core series can't have a darker and complex story, but not the same kind of story that Colosseum tells and limits the players to.
But I get what you mean that the core series has to shake things up. As I always do, I ask myself what would I do. And it's a pretty tough question as there's not really a lot you can do that'll completely change things which might push away players and mess with the meta in a bad way. Live action battles? While I certainly can think of a way to do it at the same time it would be a drastic departure and change gameplay from being strategic to more reflexive, and one of the most liked things about Pokemon's gameplay is that it doesn't require quick reflexes. But I think I might have thought of a few ideas, both to the battling mechanics and to gameplay experience (though for major gameplay differences I'd rather they maybe think about making another spin-off which would allow for deeper exploration into an idea):
I have plenty of other ideas (like that Level Cap idea I once mentioned but everyone had a negative reaction too but I think can still work), but I don't want to go too much into hypotheticals. I just wanted to give some basic ideas and see if that's what people had in mind or were you thinking of something else?
I know I'm getting away from the IV discussion, though at the moment I don't really have anything more to say about the topic, or at least at the moment.
My issue with asking them to change the game is this: change it how? How can they change the gameplay in a way it keeps the Pokemon feel, remain competitive (because like it or not that is something that needs to be considered, a lot of Pokemon's popularity is thanks to its metagame), and is significant enough that it will effect you're play experience?
Kurona, you bring up Colosseum as an example of Pokemon changing the formula... except it really didn't. The battle mechanics are the same, it's just a different scenario. And for a side series that scenario works perfectly fine, but I don't think it'll transition that well into the core series (except maybe ONE aspect, which I'll get into). Now, I would love if they made another Colosseum game, bring back Orre (or maybe another region in a similar situation, though with Orre we can see how things have changed)... but don't make it a core series game. Colosseum was able to have a darker atmosphere and experiment with ideas such as stealing other trainer's Pokemon (and limiting your Pokemon choice to mainly other trainer Pokemon) because it wasn't a core series title which is made to attract a wider audience. Not saying the core series can't have a darker and complex story, but not the same kind of story that Colosseum tells and limits the players to.
But I get what you mean that the core series has to shake things up. As I always do, I ask myself what would I do. And it's a pretty tough question as there's not really a lot you can do that'll completely change things which might push away players and mess with the meta in a bad way. Live action battles? While I certainly can think of a way to do it at the same time it would be a drastic departure and change gameplay from being strategic to more reflexive, and one of the most liked things about Pokemon's gameplay is that it doesn't require quick reflexes. But I think I might have thought of a few ideas, both to the battling mechanics and to gameplay experience (though for major gameplay differences I'd rather they maybe think about making another spin-off which would allow for deeper exploration into an idea):
1. Additional Command Options: In other media such as the anime and manga (and even some games) we see something Pokemon do in battle they can't in the core series: they can dodge. They can enter a more defensive role. They can even do nothing! They can do all sorts of things which you think someone could logically do in battle. Yet, the core series is a bit, say, stiffer when it comes to this; everything is based on the four moves the Pokemon has. So, why not change that?
To start things off, how about increasing the amount of commands the trainer can give their Pokemon? Replace the "Run" option in the menu with a "Call/Command" option. Within that option is a menu with other options you can tell your Pokemon to do. First the original "Run" option will be there and work as it does now. Then there's a "Guard" command which has the Pokemon give up its turn to enter a defensive position, increasing its Defense, Special Defense, and Evasion for that turn and also becoming immune to Critical Hits. Next is "Encourage" and it sort of works like the "Call" command in Colosseum; the Pokemon does nothing for that turn but there's some additional effects: it increases a Pokemon's friendship a bit, if Asleep/Confused will likely wake up/snap out of it, if Paralyzed will more likely pull off an attack next turn, and if has a lowered stat may possibly reset that stat. Finally "Drop" will give the Pokemon an option to drop the held item it has. In addition to these, in Double/Triple battles there will be a few more options: "Cover" has the Pokemon take a hit for an ally if its faster then the attacking Pokemon, "Give" has the Pokemon give its ally its held item, and "Swap" has the Pokemon swap positions with another (in Triple battles, if they're right next to each other only the Pokemon who was told to "Swap" loses its turn, if far left and far right Pokemon are swapping both lose that turn).
Simple changes, but I think something that can really change how battle progress now that some defensive, item manipulating, and Double/Triple battle options are being offered.
2. Setting Options For Difficulty & Battle Styles: A long time request they sorta did once (but even then the way they did it made no sense): difficulty options. Easy, Normal, & Hard. B2W2 sort of did it but it wasn't anything major (not to mention you only got the options when you beat the game, they both should be available from the start). Sure an extra Pokemon and higher levels was nice (and maybe improved movesets), but it was mostly only notable characters effected and their AI wasn't improved, given complicated strategies, or had all their Pokemon holding items. I could list down my ideas for difficulty setting but already this post is long. So I'll move onto my other idea here.
In Colosseum all the battles were Double Battles. In the main game it's all mainly single battles with maybe other kinds here and there. How about giving us an option to change the battles to being Single, Double, Triple, and so on? Maybe even let us make them Inverse or Rotation battles!
To start things off, how about increasing the amount of commands the trainer can give their Pokemon? Replace the "Run" option in the menu with a "Call/Command" option. Within that option is a menu with other options you can tell your Pokemon to do. First the original "Run" option will be there and work as it does now. Then there's a "Guard" command which has the Pokemon give up its turn to enter a defensive position, increasing its Defense, Special Defense, and Evasion for that turn and also becoming immune to Critical Hits. Next is "Encourage" and it sort of works like the "Call" command in Colosseum; the Pokemon does nothing for that turn but there's some additional effects: it increases a Pokemon's friendship a bit, if Asleep/Confused will likely wake up/snap out of it, if Paralyzed will more likely pull off an attack next turn, and if has a lowered stat may possibly reset that stat. Finally "Drop" will give the Pokemon an option to drop the held item it has. In addition to these, in Double/Triple battles there will be a few more options: "Cover" has the Pokemon take a hit for an ally if its faster then the attacking Pokemon, "Give" has the Pokemon give its ally its held item, and "Swap" has the Pokemon swap positions with another (in Triple battles, if they're right next to each other only the Pokemon who was told to "Swap" loses its turn, if far left and far right Pokemon are swapping both lose that turn).
Simple changes, but I think something that can really change how battle progress now that some defensive, item manipulating, and Double/Triple battle options are being offered.
2. Setting Options For Difficulty & Battle Styles: A long time request they sorta did once (but even then the way they did it made no sense): difficulty options. Easy, Normal, & Hard. B2W2 sort of did it but it wasn't anything major (not to mention you only got the options when you beat the game, they both should be available from the start). Sure an extra Pokemon and higher levels was nice (and maybe improved movesets), but it was mostly only notable characters effected and their AI wasn't improved, given complicated strategies, or had all their Pokemon holding items. I could list down my ideas for difficulty setting but already this post is long. So I'll move onto my other idea here.
In Colosseum all the battles were Double Battles. In the main game it's all mainly single battles with maybe other kinds here and there. How about giving us an option to change the battles to being Single, Double, Triple, and so on? Maybe even let us make them Inverse or Rotation battles!
I have plenty of other ideas (like that Level Cap idea I once mentioned but everyone had a negative reaction too but I think can still work), but I don't want to go too much into hypotheticals. I just wanted to give some basic ideas and see if that's what people had in mind or were you thinking of something else?
I know I'm getting away from the IV discussion, though at the moment I don't really have anything more to say about the topic, or at least at the moment.
Before I respond to anything else...
Heck, VGC is still a fairly niche event relative to everything else. Saying a lot of Pokémon's popularity is down to competitive is just a very out there argument that I'm going to need you to back up.
I brought up Colosseum as an example of how it changes up how you play and changes up your experience. While perhaps not the best example when I'm wanting a complete overhaul of mechanics and systems, it's the only example I have as it's the only time they've experimented with something different without going for a completely different genre like Mystery Dungeon or Ranger. I'm also not entirely sure why you're focusing on Colosseum's darker stories and themes since that specifically wasn't any part of my point; my whole point about Colosseum was that it was different. I don't think darker stories are suited to the main series games and I stated multiple times that the best parts about Pokémon to me right now are its setting and creatures; ie I wouldn't want to stray too far from the main games' general lighthearted nature. What I was illustrating with Colosseum was that though it didn't go as far as changing the base mechanics, it -did- force you to play in a fundamentally different way than any main game by introducing the Shadow Pokémon mechanic, limiting your options from a plethora of wild species to individual creatures that you must save from your antagonists and help them in addition to battling alongside them. The result is a game that feels incredibly unique when you compare to every single main game. I don't want Colosseum/XD's style copy-pasted to a new game; I would find it nice to see them returning but disappointing compared to what I want. As I stated multiple times, I want something different. I would in fact agree that the darker nature of Colosseum is more suited to a spin-off but that's not anywhere near the point I was illustrating at all. I don't know how you got that from my argument.
As for how I'd change it up... I admit, I don't know. Ignoring for a moment that this isn't really the place for wishlisting anyway, I don't know quite how I'd change the mechanics nor how to strike that sweet spot between familiarity and a fresh new take.
But the thing is, that's not my job. I'm not a game designer by any stretch -- I'm just a customer who is a bit sick of playing the same game with a new skin each time and would like to see things shaken a little. It should be Game Freak's job to have a bit more creativity than they currently do, to not be afraid of straying from the exact same mechanics we've seen since at least 2001. And that's where my frustration lies. Game Freak, right now, is not very creative nor do they have any interest in making anything truly new or unique (beyond the actual Pokémon species -- again, I feel like every generation produces some real winners there). They're happy to just tack on basic advancements of previous mechanics as 'new features', say that's good enough, and send it off for shipping confident that enough people will buy it. And they will. And I'm not gonna chastise someone for buying something they enjoy, but you get to a point after over 10 years where you're frustrated of seeing a favourite franchise of yours continue to just give you the exact same thing they gave you when you were 8 years old when other franchises have shown they are not only capable of doing better, but exceed at doing better in this area. So I can criticise, but I admit that when it comes to game design I wouldn't know where to start creating. But I would hope that someone who does know game design would want to challenge themselves and make something just a little bit new every now and then.
A level cap is interesting and it definitely makes sense with what we currently have, but for me it would feel like a bit too unnatural of a limitation. I think a better compromise is a variation on the exp. system introduced in Generation 5 -- where after a certain level you don't stop gaining levels, but you gain them much, much slower. This would dissuade players from levelling to a point of being overpowered, effectively curtailing any attempts to blow past challenges. In addition, were exp. to stop so drastically after a certain level, then that would mean it would also effectively be faster to find a new Pokémon in the surrounding area and level it up; encouraging players to try out new strategies and options rather than just sticking what they have and going for pure power.
In regards to difficulty options, something I've recently thought about which would resolve the key dilemma in my opinion - how to make it challenging for veteran players while not staving off younger, newer players - is actually something many other RPGs use these days: New Game+. An option that would allow you to start over after your main adventure and go through it not only a little bit harder, but with more rewards and some variation on your previous adventure -- perhaps similar to what the third version system currently offers, but with of course higher difficulty. Used in tandem with a new save file, this would mean that we would get the harder experience we want so much while newer players could segway into it naturally after their first adventure makes them experienced at the game -- and if they still get too frustrated with the New Game+, they can simply return to the aftergame of their main file.
Your suggestion of extra options for commanding your Pokémon... frankly seems brilliant. It opens up gameplay options, increases immersion and keeps with the core messages and morals of the franchise. I'd say that some of them would need nerfed - guarding increasing defensive capabilities that much seems pretty extreme - but the base idea is a good one. I think a good idea would also be that these options improve the higher your friendship is; or perhaps even more open up with higher friendship.
... gonna need a very, very big citation on that. I suppose you could possibly bring up VGC, but not only is a big part of its popularity down to the fact that it's Pokémon; not only are the main games only a portion of that - with the TCG for instance taking up a very significant portion - but there's also a thousand ways to make a game competitive, especially if you're keeping Pokémon's general "everyone has access to every creature and option" thing in mind which allows it to be a competitive metagame. Heck, if we're talking about competitive; we just spent a whole page talking about how the way Pokémon currently is creates a large entry barrier to competitive and how competitive itself is completely antithetical to the morals and message of the franchise, hence driving a lot of people away. And that's not just down to facilities not being as convenient as they could be - the games have added on ways to make it a bit easier in the past couple gens - that's down to fundamental basic mechanics. So if anything, competitive would be an argument for a game that changes everything up.
Heck, VGC is still a fairly niche event relative to everything else. Saying a lot of Pokémon's popularity is down to competitive is just a very out there argument that I'm going to need you to back up.
I brought up Colosseum as an example of how it changes up how you play and changes up your experience. While perhaps not the best example when I'm wanting a complete overhaul of mechanics and systems, it's the only example I have as it's the only time they've experimented with something different without going for a completely different genre like Mystery Dungeon or Ranger. I'm also not entirely sure why you're focusing on Colosseum's darker stories and themes since that specifically wasn't any part of my point; my whole point about Colosseum was that it was different. I don't think darker stories are suited to the main series games and I stated multiple times that the best parts about Pokémon to me right now are its setting and creatures; ie I wouldn't want to stray too far from the main games' general lighthearted nature. What I was illustrating with Colosseum was that though it didn't go as far as changing the base mechanics, it -did- force you to play in a fundamentally different way than any main game by introducing the Shadow Pokémon mechanic, limiting your options from a plethora of wild species to individual creatures that you must save from your antagonists and help them in addition to battling alongside them. The result is a game that feels incredibly unique when you compare to every single main game. I don't want Colosseum/XD's style copy-pasted to a new game; I would find it nice to see them returning but disappointing compared to what I want. As I stated multiple times, I want something different. I would in fact agree that the darker nature of Colosseum is more suited to a spin-off but that's not anywhere near the point I was illustrating at all. I don't know how you got that from my argument.
As for how I'd change it up... I admit, I don't know. Ignoring for a moment that this isn't really the place for wishlisting anyway, I don't know quite how I'd change the mechanics nor how to strike that sweet spot between familiarity and a fresh new take.
But the thing is, that's not my job. I'm not a game designer by any stretch -- I'm just a customer who is a bit sick of playing the same game with a new skin each time and would like to see things shaken a little. It should be Game Freak's job to have a bit more creativity than they currently do, to not be afraid of straying from the exact same mechanics we've seen since at least 2001. And that's where my frustration lies. Game Freak, right now, is not very creative nor do they have any interest in making anything truly new or unique (beyond the actual Pokémon species -- again, I feel like every generation produces some real winners there). They're happy to just tack on basic advancements of previous mechanics as 'new features', say that's good enough, and send it off for shipping confident that enough people will buy it. And they will. And I'm not gonna chastise someone for buying something they enjoy, but you get to a point after over 10 years where you're frustrated of seeing a favourite franchise of yours continue to just give you the exact same thing they gave you when you were 8 years old when other franchises have shown they are not only capable of doing better, but exceed at doing better in this area. So I can criticise, but I admit that when it comes to game design I wouldn't know where to start creating. But I would hope that someone who does know game design would want to challenge themselves and make something just a little bit new every now and then.
A level cap is interesting and it definitely makes sense with what we currently have, but for me it would feel like a bit too unnatural of a limitation. I think a better compromise is a variation on the exp. system introduced in Generation 5 -- where after a certain level you don't stop gaining levels, but you gain them much, much slower. This would dissuade players from levelling to a point of being overpowered, effectively curtailing any attempts to blow past challenges. In addition, were exp. to stop so drastically after a certain level, then that would mean it would also effectively be faster to find a new Pokémon in the surrounding area and level it up; encouraging players to try out new strategies and options rather than just sticking what they have and going for pure power.
In regards to difficulty options, something I've recently thought about which would resolve the key dilemma in my opinion - how to make it challenging for veteran players while not staving off younger, newer players - is actually something many other RPGs use these days: New Game+. An option that would allow you to start over after your main adventure and go through it not only a little bit harder, but with more rewards and some variation on your previous adventure -- perhaps similar to what the third version system currently offers, but with of course higher difficulty. Used in tandem with a new save file, this would mean that we would get the harder experience we want so much while newer players could segway into it naturally after their first adventure makes them experienced at the game -- and if they still get too frustrated with the New Game+, they can simply return to the aftergame of their main file.
Your suggestion of extra options for commanding your Pokémon... frankly seems brilliant. It opens up gameplay options, increases immersion and keeps with the core messages and morals of the franchise. I'd say that some of them would need nerfed - guarding increasing defensive capabilities that much seems pretty extreme - but the base idea is a good one. I think a good idea would also be that these options improve the higher your friendship is; or perhaps even more open up with higher friendship.
The fundamental problem with Pokemon is the huge gap between online and the campaing mode (yes I'm calling it the campaing mode) we all know that any and all depth in Pokemon comes from playing against a human, not against the AI, the games don't feel engaging cause the AI is so simple beating it is not very interesting
the thing is that, recent efforts to made the game more "accesible" aside (and in a world with Roblox, a game that's both popular with children and asks its users to learn a programing language; how is simplifying things gonna attract any children is anyone's guess), even when Gamefreak tries to make things challenging they fall short
Black 2's hard mode wasn't hard
Ultra Necrozma is easily handled if you have a good type match up against it
Trainers programed with "good AI" are sometimes easier that regular trainers
in order to solve this we need an AI that at the very least undertands that switching is important and does so when necessary, now programing an AI to be that smart is easier said than done but it has been done before
now the problem of the difficulty of getting competitive pokemon, that's actually much harder to adress
I think that a rental system for online battles where you can get any pokemon you want that already has perfect IVs and where you can choose any (legal) EVs and moves (not just simply pick already made teams like in our current rental system) could certainly help; if you want to get competitive pokemon that belong to you go and breed them but have a system that allows for experimentation online
the thing is that, recent efforts to made the game more "accesible" aside (and in a world with Roblox, a game that's both popular with children and asks its users to learn a programing language; how is simplifying things gonna attract any children is anyone's guess), even when Gamefreak tries to make things challenging they fall short
Black 2's hard mode wasn't hard
Ultra Necrozma is easily handled if you have a good type match up against it
Trainers programed with "good AI" are sometimes easier that regular trainers
in order to solve this we need an AI that at the very least undertands that switching is important and does so when necessary, now programing an AI to be that smart is easier said than done but it has been done before
now the problem of the difficulty of getting competitive pokemon, that's actually much harder to adress
I think that a rental system for online battles where you can get any pokemon you want that already has perfect IVs and where you can choose any (legal) EVs and moves (not just simply pick already made teams like in our current rental system) could certainly help; if you want to get competitive pokemon that belong to you go and breed them but have a system that allows for experimentation online
Last edited:
I’m kind of over Legendaries. They were really cool early on as a “wild Pokémon boss fight” sort of thing, and they could be tied into the story fairly well or used as a reward for exploration/extensive play, but now? They come too late to use in-game, they’re banned from tournaments/battle facilities, we have the internet to spoil us on the surprise, and they’re honestly too broken to be fun. I don’t know that I’ve ever seriously used any of them, which makes the time Ive spent catching them a waste.
I would be perfectly happy if new games only introduced one or two new legends(or none) and just tossed a couple of the base 580s around for people to track down.
I would be perfectly happy if new games only introduced one or two new legends(or none) and just tossed a couple of the base 580s around for people to track down.
But that's what they've generally always been: extremely late-game, barred from battle facilities, and utterly broken. At least the big name ones like Mewtwo and Groudon.
My problem with legendaries is that them being late game nowadays is actually a severe issue because there is nearly nothing to do in the post game anymore. Ultra Necrozma can power through Rainbow Rocket nicely, I'll give it that. But post game Zygarde 100%? Literally all it can do is fight the Elite 4. In Black and White 2, I was able to catch freaking Kyurem and get good experience out of it in the Black Tower by leveling it up to 100, not to mention the countless rematchable NPCs. In Heart Gold, I captured Mewtwo and had a nice time putting it against the E4, which is actually a decent challenge in HGSS, and gym leader rematches.
In Pokemon Sun, I can capture Tapu Koko and... fight the Elite 4? Go to Poni Island?
In Pokemon Sun, I can capture Tapu Koko and... fight the Elite 4? Go to Poni Island?
Well apparently no one is really interested in
Another thing is the point in the story that you catch the Legendaries, I feel.
In GSC, RSE, and DPP, the story climaxes between the 7th and 8th Gyms - that's where you take on the evil team, go through a dungeon, and battle the Pokemon that adorns the cover of the game's box. After that, the 8th gym feels like a well-earned vacation, where the stakes have come down and you can enjoy dishing out the smackdown with your newly-caught Legendary Pokemon.
In BW, things are a little different. The story reaches its peak after you defeat the Elite Four - the point where in every other game, the credits start rolling. You get the chance to battle Reshiram/Zekrom immediately before facing N and Ghetsis, in two battles of world-ending importance. Because the Legendary Pokemon is so important to the story - heck, the battle against N literally starts out with the two dragons squaring off against each other - it still feels special despite being much, much more serious than past generations. BW2 changes things up again, outright denying you access to Kyurem until you finish the main storyline. And since you can't catch it until the game's fully over, it's difficult to justify ever using since there's just never any reason to. BW2 has I believe more post-game "superbosses" than any other in the main series, but since a) they're all technically optional;
XY returns to the norm with the main plot happening between the 7th and 8th Gyms. There's an important distinction here, though: In the past, battling the Legendary Pokemon would be the last thing you do, after the evil team boss is finally defeated once and for all. Here? You can't battle Lysandre until you catch Xerneas/Yveltal. And while lore-wise this makes perfect sense... it's a bit anticlimactic that you can setup Geomancy and then auto-win by clicking Moonblast. (Maybe it's different with Yveltal; I've only played X so I don't know.)
In Alola, Nebby and Necrozma are caught pretty much immediately before challenging the Pokemon League. This means that the portion of the storyline where it can be used is extremely small, especially considering gen 7's (lack of a) postgame.
I believe that Legendary Pokemon that the player is forced to catch don't work well. There are a few reasons for this: first, forced-catch Legendaries have much higher catch rates than those that are optional, which greatly reduces the excitement of the battle. Second, since in every case of a forced catch except SM Nebby, it immediately precedes a major battle, it can feel like you're given a bypass to what should be the most important fight in the game (Looking at you, ORAS Rayquaza). Third, while I love the idea of a Legendary already wanting to help you, it doesn't feel as satisfying as actually proving that you're worthy of training it. Again, I think that BW succeeded on the forced legendary capture since a) it makes sense in the story; b) N has the opposing dragon and him and Ghetsis are brutal regardless; and c) the entire story is about the conflict between truth and ideals, which Reshiram and Zekrom are physical representations of.
So... here's my own unpopular opinion now, which is that DPP has by far the best handling of Legendary Pokemon in the series. Every single one is either a) important to the story, or b) requires an extensive sidequest and dungeon to encounter (Stark Mountain? Yes please!). When Cyrus is defeated, Dialga/Palkia/Giratina is still rampaging, and it falls on the player to stop them from destroying the world, or quite possibly the universe. It's not just that they *are* Legendary - it's that they *feel* legendary.
EDIT: Apparently, in BW2 Kyurem is caught at level 70, not 50, meaning there's more reason to use it than I initially thought. Doesn't change the fact that you don't catch it until the story's over, though.
Last edited:
Speaking of VGC, lets not forget of the biggest killers: The pentagon/clover rule!That rule is the reason why so many players left VGC. And that is why so many top players hack: Pokémon is far too into IVs, natures, abilities that you spend more time breeding than battling. I couldn’t attend a Premier Challenge because I couldn’t chlorophyll Cottonee in time. But at least if you have bred them before, you don’t have to do it again, right? WRONG! The Clover rule ensures you can’t use a Pokémon without a clover mark, effectively forcing you to rebreed/soft-reset, which takes even more time I have a 5IV Modest Reshiram from Omega Ruby that will never see an actual event for VGC because GF wants everyone to have an ‘ equal ‘ opportunity, or just bring your in game team and play, which never win a Regional.
Also, if Pokémon is about battling with favorites, they should just replace battles with contests or PokeStar Studios. To be perfectly honest, I’s Rather be coordinator than trainer. Because contest and PokeStar Studios were one of the few places where you can actually win with your favorites! Stats, typing, ability don’t matter, it’s all about choosing your move wisely for the big appeal! In contests Zekrom vs Ledyba has no sure victor in contrast to battles.
Another issue with Pokémon I believe is that there are too many of them. There’s now 803, and each game Pokémon just keep getting powrercrept, making it harder to win with favorites. Every metagame has only 30 Pokémon who are used regularly, and everything else is outclassed. And due to the nature of Pokémon, it’s impossible to remove Pokémon, so it’s jusy going to keep expanding until.... God knows how many Pokémon will there by the end.
Also, if Pokémon is about battling with favorites, they should just replace battles with contests or PokeStar Studios. To be perfectly honest, I’s Rather be coordinator than trainer. Because contest and PokeStar Studios were one of the few places where you can actually win with your favorites! Stats, typing, ability don’t matter, it’s all about choosing your move wisely for the big appeal! In contests Zekrom vs Ledyba has no sure victor in contrast to battles.
Another issue with Pokémon I believe is that there are too many of them. There’s now 803, and each game Pokémon just keep getting powrercrept, making it harder to win with favorites. Every metagame has only 30 Pokémon who are used regularly, and everything else is outclassed. And due to the nature of Pokémon, it’s impossible to remove Pokémon, so it’s jusy going to keep expanding until.... God knows how many Pokémon will there by the end.
Big Y comes with Oblivion Wing, and none of Lysander's mons can hit for SE damage.
The Clover rule specifically infuriates me. I understand the Pentagon rule - they want to keep out obscure event moves from one distribution in 2009 (etc). But it's incredibly frustrating to think of the massive amount of Pokemon I bred and trained in gen 6 - which I now have to rebreed and retrain in gen 7 if I want to use them in competition, and which I will likely have to do so again when the time comes to transfer them up to gen 8. (There is *one* instance I can think of where the Clover rule is justified, and that's to prohibit Power-up Punch Mega Kangaskhan, which was, admittedly, ridiculously broken.)
Low catch rates don't build excitement for me, only frustration.
Leader Wallace There's currently 807 Pokemon, not counting Meltan.
I presume the Pentagon/Clover rules are to implement something akin to the TCG rotations, so as to avoid any kind of balancing mistake to be carried over through generations, be it some obscure event from 10 years ago or a TM move you shouldn't have given to a Pokemon.
When Gen VIII rolls out, we're having another symbol.
I'm gonna go off this one for a second to roll out my own hot take:
Pokémon Let's Go: Pikachu & Eevee have a far superior system of catching Legendaries which feels a lot more fitting to what a battle against such a beast should be.
... there's caveats to this, of course. As with just about everything in LGPE, it looks a bit too easy -- beating wild Legendaries almost always is. No AI + having the advantage of more Pokémon on your side equals a very unbalanced fight in your favour, as with any other wild 'mon.
But frankly, the idea of actually trying to beat a Legendary Pokémon in battle to get them to join your team? That's a lot more interesting and appealing than just chucking Ultra/Dusk Balls, and hoping that just this once the RNG might be in your favour. Throw in totem-esque boosts, some AI, a tailored movepool; maybe even different restrictions on the player depending on the location or the Legendary in question and that would be so much better. An epic staged battle that grants you great reward by the end of it. Give these fights a lot more weight to them than just being a dull, extended, annoying variation on a wild encounter you've had a thousand times over by this point in your adventure.
I think the part that you said at the end is necessary from a gameplay perspective - that is, buffing the legendary Pokemon - but at the same time makes the reward feel cheap.
Without giving the opponent a huge boost (be that level, movepool, or stats) 1v6 battles are rarely difficult. Take a look at Kyurem in BW2, while it was supposed to be a boss in its own right I don't think I've seen or heard anybody lose to it except in certain challenge runs. It's certainly stronger than any of the Pokemon in the following Ghetsis fight, both in stats and level, but it's a speedbump at worst. Necrozma in USUM, on the other hand, takes it to the opposite end by making it a Pokemon with absurdly high stats and a boost on top of it, a custom movepool, and a much higher level than the player has any reason to be. Necrozma takes it a bit too far in that it wipes teams without specific counters. There's definitely a balance in between, although it'd definitely take playtesting to figure out, and would almost definitely only work particularly well for legendary battles that are forced at a certain point in time.
The "cheapened reward" though is an issue I've seen in a few romhacks. Generally it's 'battle NPC who uses Pokemon X, afterwards receive Pokemon X', where during the battle the Pokemon is a higher level or has a custom moveset or ability. In practice this just makes it feel like less of a reward, as though you're getting cheapened out of what you had to overcome. This isn't really desirable in my eyes.
I think the totem style boosts for wild legendaries is a good idea, it would make the battle more interesting while also making it clear that this is a powered up version of what you'll get, something the player would need to use items to achieve. What I'd also like to see though is a rehaul of the catching system slightly.
For catching I do think some of the randomness should be kept - so in other words keep the current formula for determining catch rate - but instead of every throw being a separate chance add on the chance every time the catch fails to the next attempt. As an example, if you throw a Pokeball at Solgaleo at full HP you have a 5.9% chance to catch it. In the current system you'd have that same 5.9% chance every time you throw the ball. What I'd like to see is that if you fail that first 5.9% chance, the next Pokeball has a 11.8% chance to catch, and the one after has a 17.7% chance and so on until 100%. This allows for lucky captures as well as rewarding maximizing catch chance through status and reducing HP, but also puts a cap on how many balls are necessary before capture is guaranteed.
Either way I do agree, the current system for catching legendary Pokemon (and other low catch rate mons) is more frustrating than actually challenging.
I think boosting the catch rate from 3 to 15 would be enough.
I'll give an example. Not counting Roto Power or Critical Captures, with an asleep wild Pokemon at 1 HP, while throwing a Dusk Ball in a dark place:
- You have a pathetic 16% chance of capturing a Pokemon with a Catch Rate of 3. You are confident at catching such a Pokemon in around 17 throws.
- You have roughly a 55% chance of capturing a Pokemon with a Catch Rate of 15. The only Pokemon with such a catch rate is Volcarona. Seems reasonable IMO.
This catch rate would reward skill and planning greatly while not making it too easy if without it (at 1 HP, no status and an Ultra Ball, you only have a 20% chance of catching a Pokemon with a Catch Rate of 15).