Unpopular opinions

3- I find it very funny the fact that every generation there are always Pikachu-like Pokémon, such as Pachirisu, Mimikyu and Dedenne.
Rather than funny, I believe the inclusion of the so called "Pikaclone" in every gen is fully intended by Pokemon Company. They also have the common part of all learning Nuzzle and being electric type (Mimikyu is namely not gen 7 Pikaclone, that's Togedemaru)

I see the problem, but I feel like there's a different solution here. I'd go for something like this: Have two different metagames, one with the symbol like it is now, and another one where anything's fair game. Or have the "must be born in the region" thing only apply to things you can actually get in those games.

Maybe that's just me, but I feel like the multiplayer aspect ruins the games in a way, because it forces the developers to find ways to include all those Pokemon from earlier generations, along with all the evolution items, mega stones, and all of that stuff. Look at Mauville City in ORAS to see how that turns out. I just find it weird that something like Pokebank exists, and yet it's ultimately pointless.
You're not wrong, but unless they somehow streamline the availability of event-only Pokemon (expecially HA genies and event-specific moves some of which are particularly important, see Extreme Speed Entei, Eruption Heatran or V-create Rayquaza) plus the issue with some old-gen TMs that do have significant impact on metagame (cough Seismic Toss / PuP Kanga) I don't see this happening in near future.

Namely the whole reasoning for "current gen only" is to not give unfair advantage to who has been playing Pokemon for ages over someone who just picked it up in the latest gen. Which is somewhat making sense, but only because of the above issue of gen-exclusives.
 
Last edited:
Rather than funny, I believe the inclusion of the so called "Pikaclone" in every gen is fully intended by Pokemon Company. They also have the common part of all learning Nuzzle and being electric type (Mimikyu is namely not gen 7 Pikaclone, that's Togedemaru)
Yes, exactly!
 

Pikachu315111

Ranting & Raving!
is a Community Contributoris a Top Smogon Media Contributor
Again, they are in the games for VGC purposes. It has no link to any of the storylines. They can't not put them unless they significantly alter the VGC ruleset.
I'm beginning to wonder if they should just make it so you can breed Legendaries/Mythical if VGC is going to cause this much problem and forcing these Legendary hunts. Or if they don't want that maybe allow you to "re-incarnate" your Legendary/Mythical; their Legendary/Mythical so I'm sure they have the power to do that.

First of all I apologize for my sincere opinions on Pokémon to the general, I wrote a list with 10 arguments:

1- Currently I can not imagine Gyarados being a Dragon-type Pokémon, its Water-type and Flying-type perfectly match with their characteristics.

2- I do not like Ash Ketchum's personality, I think he is very proud and does not realize his current reality, he just wants to advance in the anime but he does not think that for every success there is always a failure.

3- I find it very funny the fact that every generation there are always Pikachu-like Pokémon, such as Pachirisu, Mimikyu and Dedenne.

5- The people have always been very impressed with Rayquaza, both in anime and games, but for me there are several other Dragon-type Pokémon more interesting, an example is Latias.

6- I've never been drawn to any initial Fire-type, always end up opting for Water-type, one of my favorites is Popplio.

7- My favorite legendary Pokémon is Xerneas, represents a lot to me of LGBTQ+ group.

9- I would like very much to have another mega Pokémon options, actually my favorite is Altaria-Mega, but I also love Ampharos-Mega.
1. Flying-type always throws me off (yes, I know why they gave it to it after they decided against making it part Dragon). And it must have thrown off the designers too as the only Flying-type moves it learns are Hurricane (which goes off its weakest offense stat) and Bounce (a weaker Fly that's switch bait). Just now do I realize they probably changed Mega Gyarados to Water/Dark because it can actually use the Dark-type STAB more effectively with Crunch.

2. The writing for Ash after Diamond & Pearl has indeed been problematic. It's not that he doesn't think with every win there's going to be a loss (which is a pessimistic way to look at things) but that they keep resetting him so any lesson he learned one generation he forgets the next. And he keeps losing in the League because the show has "always someone better" syndrome where Ash meets the person that'll eventually knock him out of the League just before the League (though XY mixed that up a bit).

3. As long as Pikachu is the mascot we'll no doubt always get a Pika-clone every generation. I just ask for it to be interesting, maybe give it a unique typing (Electric/Fire or Electric/Ice would be neat to see, though I wonder what an Electric/Bug or Electric/Dragon would be like).

5. I like Dialga and Zekrom more than Rayquaza. I get why people like Rayquaza, its an offensive powerhouse, though I feel Dialga and Zekrom has a more standardized playstyle focusing on one offense stat while Rayquaza, if its not playing a mixed set, will be wasting one of its offense stats that so much of its BST went into.

6. I'm on Team Fire Starter for the initial games though recently with ORAS and USUM I decided to change it up a bit since they're remakes/third versions. I picked Torchic in Sapphire so in Alpha Sapphire decided to go with Treecko. I picked Litten in Moon so in Ultra Moon I went with Popplio. While I feel more comfortable with the Fire Starter using the other Types is an interesting experience as it means I gotta re-think how I usually do things now that I don't have a Fire-type as my main mon.

7. Huh, never thought Xerneas as being a LGBTQ+ symbol, though I can see it with the rainbow horns.

9. Are you saying you want more Mega Pokemon in general or you want more Pokemon to have additional Mega options like Charizard and Mewtwo does? I can agree on the former though the latter I'd rather they only do that for Pokemon which could go multiple directions in a Mega Evolution. Infact I kind of don't think Charizard and Mewtwo needed two, I would rather they just made Mega Charizard Y the main but a Fire/Dragon while Mega Mewtwo Y was fine as is (though the design could use some work).
 
I'm beginning to wonder if they should just make it so you can breed Legendaries/Mythical if VGC is going to cause this much problem and forcing these Legendary hunts. Or if they don't want that maybe allow you to "re-incarnate" your Legendary/Mythical; their Legendary/Mythical so I'm sure they have the power to do that.



1. Flying-type always throws me off (yes, I know why they gave it to it after they decided against making it part Dragon). And it must have thrown off the designers too as the only Flying-type moves it learns are Hurricane (which goes off its weakest offense stat) and Bounce (a weaker Fly that's switch bait). Just now do I realize they probably changed Mega Gyarados to Water/Dark because it can actually use the Dark-type STAB more effectively with Crunch.

2. The writing for Ash after Diamond & Pearl has indeed been problematic. It's not that he doesn't think with every win there's going to be a loss (which is a pessimistic way to look at things) but that they keep resetting him so any lesson he learned one generation he forgets the next. And he keeps losing in the League because the show has "always someone better" syndrome where Ash meets the person that'll eventually knock him out of the League just before the League (though XY mixed that up a bit).

3. As long as Pikachu is the mascot we'll no doubt always get a Pika-clone every generation. I just ask for it to be interesting, maybe give it a unique typing (Electric/Fire or Electric/Ice would be neat to see, though I wonder what an Electric/Bug or Electric/Dragon would be like).

5. I like Dialga and Zekrom more than Rayquaza. I get why people like Rayquaza, its an offensive powerhouse, though I feel Dialga and Zekrom has a more standardized playstyle focusing on one offense stat while Rayquaza, if its not playing a mixed set, will be wasting one of its offense stats that so much of its BST went into.

6. I'm on Team Fire Starter for the initial games though recently with ORAS and USUM I decided to change it up a bit since they're remakes/third versions. I picked Torchic in Sapphire so in Alpha Sapphire decided to go with Treecko. I picked Litten in Moon so in Ultra Moon I went with Popplio. While I feel more comfortable with the Fire Starter using the other Types is an interesting experience as it means I gotta re-think how I usually do things now that I don't have a Fire-type as my main mon.

7. Huh, never thought Xerneas as being a LGBTQ+ symbol, though I can see it with the rainbow horns.

9. Are you saying you want more Mega Pokemon in general or you want more Pokemon to have additional Mega options like Charizard and Mewtwo does? I can agree on the former though the latter I'd rather they only do that for Pokemon which could go multiple directions in a Mega Evolution. Infact I kind of don't think Charizard and Mewtwo needed two, I would rather they just made Mega Charizard Y the main but a Fire/Dragon while Mega Mewtwo Y was fine as is (though the design could use some work).
Answering the question number 9, I would like to see more Pokémon-Mega in general! :')
 
Given the inspiration for Xerneas is Norse mythology, it's most likely a reference to Bifrost, the rainbow bridge that connects Asgard to Midgard.
Oh, thank you for explaining!

I don't think that's the intention of the Pokemon design, but if you're happy with it then sure. I don't mean to be blunt, I just can't really think of another way to word it.
Yes, I am sure it isn't the the intention of Xerneas' design, but I feel represented by his rainbow and even by resembling a deer, people have always called me a deer because I'm gay, it's an offense, but I feel proud of myself. Xerneas is like the mirror.

I don't think that's the intention of the Pokemon design, but if you're happy with it then sure. I don't mean to be blunt, I just can't really think of another way to word it.
Thank you for explaining! Sorry I did not see your message.
 
I never really never understood the hate for the Rotom-Dex in Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon. Talking to it during the game is mostly optional, and even if if you choose to talk to it, it (mostly) doesn't interrupt gameplay the same way other companion characters like Navi do. Rotom-Dex also gives the player some pretty useful items that help speed up a lot of things like grinding, breeding, etc, which is pretty cool honestly.

Even though Rotom-Dex's personality is somewhat limited in USUM, I found it more charming than in SM. The expressions it shows at the beginning are nervous, but they gradually grow to be more playful and expressive over time, just like an actual friend. It gives Rotom-Dex a simple, yet effective arc, and adds character and charm to the game that I don't think would be there if it was the exact same as in Sun and Moon.
 

Ryota Mitarai

Shrektimus Prime
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I never really never understood the hate for the Rotom-Dex in Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon. Talking to it during the game is mostly optional, and even if if you choose to talk to it, it (mostly) doesn't interrupt gameplay the same way other companion characters like Navi do. Rotom-Dex also gives the player some pretty useful items that help speed up a lot of things like grinding, breeding, etc, which is pretty cool honestly.

Even though Rotom-Dex's personality is somewhat limited in USUM, I found it more charming than in SM. The expressions it shows at the beginning are nervous, but they gradually grow to be more playful and expressive over time, just like an actual friend. It gives Rotom-Dex a simple, yet effective arc, and adds character and charm to the game that I don't think would be there if it was the exact same as in Sun and Moon.
I believe the hate for Rotom Dex comes from the constant annoying tips that block the use of the map (like it gives me constantly some tip it gave me 10 times already) and the fact that Rotom Dex can give you a really cringy nickname (it called me Roto V which I regretted a lot the first time).
 
I never really never understood the hate for the Rotom-Dex in Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon. Talking to it during the game is mostly optional, and even if if you choose to talk to it, it (mostly) doesn't interrupt gameplay the same way other companion characters like Navi do. Rotom-Dex also gives the player some pretty useful items that help speed up a lot of things like grinding, breeding, etc, which is pretty cool honestly.

Even though Rotom-Dex's personality is somewhat limited in USUM, I found it more charming than in SM. The expressions it shows at the beginning are nervous, but they gradually grow to be more playful and expressive over time, just like an actual friend. It gives Rotom-Dex a simple, yet effective arc, and adds character and charm to the game that I don't think would be there if it was the exact same as in Sun and Moon.
The issue is that at some point, providing you interact with it enough, it starts giving "Advice you didn't ask for", and it doesn't seem like there's any way to make it stop. When it is doing this, it blocks the map, which is one of its useful features, and the constant movement of its mouth and the scrolling of the text drags your attention away from other things you are trying to focus on. At least it does that for me. It also keeps on talking endlessly during minor cutscenes in the story and at times when the bottom screen is darkened, which it didn't do in S/M. I can sort of understand that Game Freak wants to give advice to the player, chances are that they saw other games like Smash 3DS and BOTW do this during loading screens so they wanted to do something similar. But since pretty much every loading screen in Pokemon is hidden behind a cutscene, they chose to do it this way instead, and it sucks.

It isn't all bad though as the Rotom Dex does have some good features. I like the map (when I can actually see it), the Rotom Powers (though I prefer the O-Powers from Gen 6, they felt better executed for the way I play), talking and interacting with it (but answering the same questions over and over gets boring after a while), and how it makes a reaction when you see a new Pokemon you haven't seen before. I also like how it makes funny comments on things during the story. If it weren't for it's constant babbling, the Rotom Dex would actually be really great. But as it stands now, it is a candidate for one of my least favorite features in the series. Though I don't know if everyone else is as annoyed by this as I am. Sad as it is, the Rotom Dex is one of the biggest things that drags down US/UM for me, I get annoyed by it practically every time I play them. Which is a shame as it shouldn't have to be that way. I have been wondering if maybe the games aren't intended for those like me who put 200-400 hours of playtime into them. Or maybe Game Freak aren't quite as compentent at programming things as it sometimes may seem like.

Though, that's just how I feel. I am a big hater of the Rotom Dex's endless babbling so this is probably not the most neutral answer you can get.
 
Last edited:
The "blackout" punishment for losing a pokemon battle is too harsh, which incidentally lead to the pokemon games becoming less challenging. Let me explain:

So when you lose, you're warped to the last pokemon center you visited and lose some money. In Gen 3 and earlier this was half your current funds, but from Gen 4 onward it's a formula based on your highest level party member and the amount of badges or stamps you've collected (and varies a bit between generations). While warping to your last pokemon center is fair enough, it's the money loss I want to focus on.

For 90% of the game, money is a finite resource you can only gain from battling trainers and nowhere else. But money is also a necessity, as without it you can't afford the Pokeballs to catch pokemon with (the core mechanic of the entire series) and for items that make the game easier like potions, X-Attack, repels, TMs, etc. So losing money is a serious penalty, as depending on your progress in the game there's no way to find more of it and the game gets much harder without it. Game designers call this a negative feedback loop, in that a loss encourages further losses.

Now most of us have never ever ever ever ever worried about running out of money in a pokemon game, mostly because for the most part these games are pretty easy. So while in theory it's possible to completely drain your wallet losing to the first gym leader over and over, in practice that will hardly ever happen.

And that's the developer's intention to cover up this negative feedback loop, that the games aren't challenging so you'll never actually have to worry about the money loss penalty.

In modern game design, truly challenging games tend to allow the player more room to make mistakes, in that the punishment is instant but also painless. That it's the lack of progress that's the real punishment, not some archaic system like lives or something. So platformers like Rayman or Celeste just warp you right back to the entrance of the current room, Super Mario Odyssey now just takes 10 coins away (when it gives you thousands), RPGs spawn you at the last save point fully healed like nothing happened, and so on.

So I feel the Gamefreak developers are holding the difficulty curve back because the punishment is too severe. Not because blacking out and losing all your cash is actually that serious an issue, but fear of an out of control negative feedback loop. The possibility that if they did make the games challenging enough that frequent losses are expected, this would go from benign to malignant in a snap.

Corollaries:

1. Some games do have infinite money of a sort (before Elite 4 rematches), in that there are free respawning items to scrounge up and sell for cash (like the Blackbelt and starpiece rock outside of Nacrene City). Some even have a limited trainer rematch feature (like the Breeder trainer class in B2/W2, or the phone in the Johto games) and recent games have the restaurant battles. But in general these funds are time-consuming (in that they are once-a-day events usually) and the payouts are rather small. And some are only available later on in the adventure, meaning there are holes in the early-game where money is finite. Still, it's a possible solution.

2. Obviously games with the VS Seeker are exempt, as you could grind cash on easy trainers endlessly. Could have been the best fix to the issue, if Gamefreak hadn't abandoned it.

3. Prempting this rebuttal, yes Dark Souls exists and yes it and games like it have very harsh penalties for losing. But not every difficult game needs to be Dark Souls and even Dark Souls has some safety nets to stop total negative feedback loop lock-out (like you only lose unspent souls, so it's more an incentive to upgrade often and a punishment for hoarding than a true penalty).

4. Also not saying the Pokemon games need to become super hardcore challenging either, but there's got to be a happy median difficulty above how easy they've become (and arguably always been).

5. Getting rid of the money loss penalty won't necessarily solve every difficulty problem with Pokemon games, I just thought it was an issue that doesn't get much discussion.
 
Last edited:
Sorry to be nitpicky, but isn’t that a positive feedback loop? The ‘negative’ in ‘negative feedback’ refers to how the initial result affects the system by negating or reducing the likelihood of the same result occurring in future, whereas a positive feedback loop has the amplifying, encouraging effect you describe.

Getting to the actual substance of what you’re saying, I agree that the money loss has become a bit of a relic from a time when it was just a standard mechanic across many games. It definitely presents that awkward problem you describe of chipping away at finite resources in a game where, if you’re struggling, heavy use of these resources is what’s getting you through it.

Although I think it’d be really cool to have a Pokémon game that rewarded consistent effort and improvement, without punishing failure, by using more ‘skill gate’ mechanics, that’s not really the Pokémon model. For better or worse, GF, with their approach to difficulty, seem to be aiming to make the experience as smooth as possible for less capable players with the potential for a trickier game experience if you want one. IIRC there was an interview where they basically said they didn’t want to frustrate players at all, because of the accessibility of mobile games or something, which was annoying to read because overcoming a little bit of frustration is one of the best parts of playing games!

I guess what I’m saying is that I think the design choices around difficulty in Pokémon come from a deliberate core philosophy for how the developers want their games to play, rather than being a result of mechanics like money loss hamstringing them. I still think those kinds of punishments should probably be removed, though.

4. Also not saying the Pokemon games need to become super hardcore challenging either, but there's got to be a happy median difficulty above how easy they've become (and arguably always been).
Maybe this is itself an unpopular opinion, but I think the most recent games have struck a good balance with essentially customisable difficulty. Now I obviously don’t know how anyone else chooses to play the game, and maybe people find it too easy despite disabling/refusing to use/toggling all the newer ‘assist’ features, but for me there’s a world of difference between a game played on Shift, with liberal use of Roto Powers, bond mechanics and X-items, and a game played on Set with none of these features utilised. I definitely found SM/USUM tougher than most of the previous main series games, at least the way I played it.
 
Sorry to be nitpicky, but isn’t that a positive feedback loop? The ‘negative’ in ‘negative feedback’ refers to how the initial result affects the system by negating or reducing the likelihood of the same result occurring in future, whereas a positive feedback loop has the amplifying, encouraging effect you describe.
Depends on the context. In programming, science, or engineering you're correct in that "positive" refers to each occurrence amplifying the chance of another occurrence. And since this is supposed to be about game design then you're right in that I should have said positive feedback loop.

In psychology however the terms refer to your emotional response, so the meanings are switched. Negative feedback encourages more negative events, positive encourages positive. Life seldom has systems that make things harder for you if you're successful, or easier if you're failing, so it makes little sense for us to use the engineering definition of negative feedback loop.

That and my point comes across clearer by matching negative opinion with negative feedback loop, even if that's not grammatically correct. It's just easier for the reader to swallow, 'ya know?

As for your second point, Mark Brown from Game Maker's Toolkit once said that while the player should have the option to customize their experience, it's still up to the developer to state the intended playstyle. Thus you choosing not to use tools like the exp. share, roto boosts, X-items, just to create a challenge is not a sign the game is well balanced as that's you inducing balance on the game by abstaining from the tools it gives you. If Gamefreak was really trying to deliver a more challenging experience, they would not have made using these features the default.

Using Celeste as an example again, Assist Mode is accessible in the options menu, and before it can be turned on a warning pops up that turning it on will ruin the intended difficulty of the game (but along with an admission that everyone plays differently and if you need this to keep the game accessible then by all means use it). There are absolutely no consequences to using it (even the common ones, like no achievements or some marker saying you used it) but at the same time the game's language makes it clear this easy-mode is not the intended experience.

The Exp Share is forced into your hands early in the game and the default is enabled. The game never warns you about it, and by the language and trainer distribution it clearly expects the player to be using it.

Because you're right in that Gamefreak probably never intended to make the pokemon games that challenging, rather captiolizing on other rewards like collecting and exploring with battles being a secondary priority (quite literally, based on the history of making Red and Blue). And I did admit that fixing the money penalty for losing a fight isn't going to solve every issue with the pokemon games fight between accessibility and difficulty.

But it's a start.
 
Depends on the context. In programming, science, or engineering you're correct in that "positive" refers to each occurrence amplifying the chance of another occurrence.
Huh, I’d never encountered a different definition for psychology. My main exposure to the term is from a physiological standpoint: homeostasis and all that jazz. Must be really confusing to switch between the two, say if you’re talking about hormone imbalance one second and then the corresponding emotional response the next. You learn something new every day!

As for your second point, Mark Brown from Game Maker's Toolkit once said that while the player should have the option to customize their experience, it's still up to the developer to state the intended playstyle. Thus you choosing not to use tools like the exp. share, roto boosts, X-items, just to create a challenge is not a sign the game is well balanced as that's you inducing balance on the game by abstaining from the tools it gives you. If Gamefreak was really trying to deliver a more challenging experience, they would not have made using these features the default.
Yeah I concede this point. Really the point I was arguing against was one you hadn’t made; you hear some people complain endlessly about how easy the games are, despite never even changing the battle mode from Shift haha.

I agree with you that it’s not a sign of good game design to shunt the player along the intended, easy path and have the harder path require you to deliberately deprive yourself of things the game gives you and expects you to use, and then to turn around and claim that that amounts to an intended difficulty option.

Getting back to the money thing, it seems like it just isn’t an element that’s thought about all that carefully in the design process, generally. For an experienced player it quickly becomes almost irrelevant in many of the games, like the score in a Mario game. But for a newcomer, who doesn’t know the mechanics very well, I can totally imagine someone losing lots of battles without some serious brute force assistance. I remember losing to Misty over and over again the first time I ever played a Pokémon game, because I just kept going at it without a change of plan or team structure. Plus I’d use healing items at the dumbest times, like after I’d been taken into the red with one attack.

I don’t know what the answer is, but change can only be a good thing in this area.
 
I don’t know what the answer is, but change can only be a good thing in this area.
Can't agree with you more there.

You do raise a good point though, or made me think of another thing with your Misty battle example. Since saving has no cost nor limit, expected player behavior is to just reload your last save and overwrite the loss entirely. Given that, it makes the money loss penalty even more archaic, as any reasonable player would just reload the game to avoid it (unless they haven't saved often enough).

So what's the point?
 
Can't agree with you more there.

You do raise a good point though, or made me think of another thing with your Misty battle example. Since saving has no cost nor limit, expected player behavior is to just reload your last save and overwrite the loss entirely. Given that, it makes the money loss penalty even more archaic, as any reasonable player would just reload the game to avoid it (unless they haven't saved often enough).

So what's the point?
My example was from when I was a dumb kid and it didn’t even occur to me to save and reload, so the penalty only serves to punish the absolute least savvy of players.

Obviously they can’t mess with the save system, because that’d bring with it a whole host of other problems, but the monetary penalty should probably go. At the very least it should be scrapped for when a player blacks out against a wild mon.
 

Ullar

card-carrying wife-guy
is a Smogon Discord Contributor
I like the LGPE competitive meta, and how it makes more mons viable under unique restrictions.

I like battles that are a little slower paced, and how there’s no Sleep Talk to make things wack.

I like how bulky things are, and how it forces you to think about every bit of damage.

I like how Eevee is amazingly versatile with moves that have nauseatingly cutesy names.

I like how Raticate-A (Faticate) carries his weight in every battle.

I like the lack of items (save Mega Stones, kinda), and the inability to remove Stealth Rock. Items can sometimes be an overwhelming decision to make, and Stealth Rock helps whittle away at all the bulk everyone has.

I like it as it stands, candies and all, and think the candyless meta is actually more unbalanced (and unrealistic for actual competitiveness).

I dislike the opposite sides people are taking on this, when the truth is in the middle. Why do you detest the fact a competitive meta is naturally arising around a casual game? By the same token, why are the rest of you abhor the casual sidegame of an incidentally competitive series? Can’t we just try to enjoy both parts of this game, casual and competitive (limited in scope competitive may be)?

Yes, the moves and ‘mons have been gutted. But there’s a saying that the most creativity comes out of the most restrictions.

I just want to be able to enjoy the meta without the peanut gallery who’s either barely played it or hasn’t at all. No, it isn’t perfect. But look at Lando-T, for chrissakes. No meta is perfect.

wow this is a long post i typed up on mobile
 

Ryota Mitarai

Shrektimus Prime
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I often remember hearing that HGSS's wild availability is pretty poor but I personally find that incorrect and that HGSS had a really interesting wild mons distribution. Like almot every route had something interesting (and useful which is what I look for into a Pokemon). For example, the route after Violet has Mareep, Wooper and Bellsprout. Sprout Tower has Gastly, Union Cave has Onix and Zubat, the route before Goldenrod has Abra, the one after has the Nidos and so on... I think every non-water route from the 1st Gym onwards has interesting selection of mons (as well as selection of boring mons like Rattata and co.).

Though I hate the fact HG's version exclusives beat SS's exclusives and that HG actually has more version exclusives in it.
 
I think gen 7 is actually pretty difficult because of the totem pokemon, especially USUM with Ultra Necrozma. That thing took me multiple tries to beat and I only won because I used Rainbow Beans in Poke Refresh to so my Incineroar could repeatedly survive hits with 1 HP. I also like that the totem stat boosts get more and more difficult with each challenge, starting with the totems only raising one stat such as Defense and progressing to each one having +1 in every stat. Also the helpers actually add some value to the fights (the best example I can think of being the Castform during the Lurantis trial that set up Sunny Day) Overall I think Game Freak put a lot of thought into those battles and as such they are a step above othe "tough" battles in other Pokemon games
 

Ryota Mitarai

Shrektimus Prime
is a Tiering Contributoris a Contributor to Smogonis a Top Smogon Media Contributor
I think gen 7 is actually pretty difficult because of the totem pokemon, especially USUM with Ultra Necrozma. That thing took me multiple tries to beat and I only won because I used Rainbow Beans in Poke Refresh to so my Incineroar could repeatedly survive hits with 1 HP. I also like that the totem stat boosts get more and more difficult with each challenge, starting with the totems only raising one stat such as Defense and progressing to each one having +1 in every stat. Also the helpers actually add some value to the fights (the best example I can think of being the Castform during the Lurantis trial that set up Sunny Day) Overall I think Game Freak put a lot of thought into those battles and as such they are a step above othe "tough" battles in other Pokemon games

I want to elaborate on this in that the game is significally hard for a first-time playthrough. When I first played it, I knew everything about the new mons. I knew the abilities, typings and their best stats. However, I still saw myself sometimes struggling through fights. I think USUM was designed in such way that even a veteran player would be thrown into a new challenge and be similar to someone that has never played Pokemon before.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 3, Guests: 8)

Top