• Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!

Unpopular opinions

Coronis said:
Archaludon is not a pseudo legendary. But its also definitely part of the 600 club. ez solve
Click to expand...

This definitely feels like it.

Despite the classic "late bloomer" group being intentional and easy to identify the actual fan terms both fandoms have used for years before the "Late Bloomer" term was coined by TPC/Game Freak for the actual classical group are pretty broad in that regard.

The "600 club" term was always less flexible to a point where things like Haxorus, Flygon, and Aggron are easily not part of it, but Archaludon being a 600 BST mon could easily be considered part of it.

"Pseudo-legendary" on the other hand has always been a fairly broad term in a vacuum, which is why many in the western fandom have "considered" Pokemon who do bear similarity to the classic late bloomer group to be them. As I said, Aggron and Haxorus in particular are scarily similar to the late bloomer group despite ending with a lower BST. Aggron was even version exclusive counterparts with Tyranitar in X and Y. Haxorus is a three-stage Dragon that levels up slowly, and two of its previous stages do share similar BSTs to some late bloomer pre-evolutions, Axew's 320 BST is similar to the relatively newly introduced Frigibax, and Fraxure's 410 BST is shared with a number of late bloomer mons' middle forms. Flygon and Haxorus are both considered very similar to the pseudos because they're three-stage Dragons with high evolution levels, and in some ways have been more popular than their generations' actual "late bloomer mon".

I do feel, however, that the actual late bloomer group we've identified for years is an intentional pattern they create on purpose, akin to starters and the major cover legendaries. The ones who follow the trend established by Dragonite do follow a lot of similar trends, but also deviate from each other in several ways, much like the cover legends who follow in Mewtwo's footsteps and the Grass/Fire/Water starters who are all modeled after the formula Venusaur, Charizard, and Blastoise established. Considering the classic "late bloomer" group is often mingled in the dex alongside sub-legendaries and legendaries towards the end of the dex, which those two groups are consistent recurring trends, it is however probably one of three particularly clear and identifiable "archetypes" they do on purpose.

"Late Bloomers" does feel like the most fitting term for the classic group, however. Especially when you consider this:

https://pastebin.com/PKdUMxpW

(Above are the evolution levels of each generation's roster of Pokemon. You can see the commonality of the "late bloomers" in terms of where they fall in their gen's roster in that regard).
 
ScraftyIsTheBest said:
I do feel, however, that the actual late bloomer group we've identified for years is an intentional pattern they create on purpose, akin to starters and the major cover legendaries. The ones who follow the trend established by Dragonite do follow a lot of similar trends, but also deviate from each other in several ways, much like the cover legends who follow in Mewtwo's footsteps and the Grass/Fire/Water starters who are all modeled after the formula Venusaur, Charizard, and Blastoise established. Considering the classic "late bloomer" group is often mingled in the dex alongside sub-legendaries and legendaries towards the end of the dex, which those two groups are consistent recurring trends, it is however probably one of three particularly clear and identifiable "archetypes" they do on purpose.
Click to expand...
Is this a bad time to mention Garchomp just chilling in the middle of the Sinnoh Dex, Goodra the Kalos section, and Hydreigon being before the Larvesta line (which is the last non-Legendary set) in Unova?

It's weird because they basically broke the Pokedex-placement pattern for those 3 gens, resumed it for 7 and 8 (disregarding DLC species which by nature just kind of jump on the end of their region's section), and then 9 got weird with Baxcalibur in between the "lesser" Paradoxes (which are debatable Legendaries in function), followed by Gholdengo (the 1000 Pokemon with a weird encounter and evo method), the minor Legends, "Boss" Paradoxes, and then Mascots.
 
I may be getting the totally wrong impression here, or maybe there’s just bad wiki citation involved, but on the Japanese Pokémon wiki that Bulbapedia’s page about pseudo-Legendaries links to, its page about the “600 club” has a section further down talking about other stat-based groups, and it seems like each of these clubs is just “those Pokémon with these stat totals.” Like there’s a “690 club” but it’s literally just… Eternatus. But for some reason the “600 club” is the only one that excludes things like Mythicals, Legendaries, and Megas.

Again, I’m relying on the web translator here so I could easily be interpreting it all wrong (and please correct me if I am), but the sense I get is that the notion behind these stat clubs isn’t quite describing the same thing as the notion of pseudo-Legendaries, which is more about a particular character design trope.
 
Esserise said:
Again, I’m relying on the web translator here so I could easily be interpreting it all wrong (and please correct me if I am), but the sense I get is that the notion behind these stat clubs isn’t quite describing the same thing as the notion of pseudo-Legendaries, which is more about a particular character design trope.
Click to expand...

its more of a trivia of pokemon with the same high base stats yes, probably just connected After the 600 club became a common jp fandom term hence why theres no actual rules on it vs what consists a 600 club member
 
My Pokemon hot takes (if you disagree that's fine)
1. Gallade is cooler then Gardevoir.
2. I like Garbodor. (mainly because of the BW anime)
3. Psyduck is lame. (yea kill me)
4. The Galar starters are not bad. (except for Rillaboom, he's stupid)
5. Mega Charizard Y looks too much like Charizard.
6. Braviary is cooler than Staraptor.
7. Quaquaval is the worst starter of all time.
8. I like Unova.
9. Galarian Moltres is the coolest Pokemon in a legendary trio.
10. I don't hate Gholdengo.
 
Last edited:
JJGameOn said:
My Pokemon hot takes
3. Psyduck is lame.
Click to expand...
Listen here you little shit /j

Ok, ignoring my justified spat, this entire convo of noticing patterns makes me feel GF should attempt more varied progression and mon encounters. The open world format of Paldea is messy, though still partially based on older progression

By this I mean;
-Early bug sucking ass (exception of Venipede line)
-Ice types being late game
-Early Normal/Dark and Flying lines with iffy mid to late game use (Swellow, Staraptor, and Talonflame being exceptional)
-Ghost being mid to late game

And others I missed. Cuz this all partially ties to power creep as well. Despite shit like Palafin Hero being straight up broken for 1v1 battles (player end*) or Paradox mons, you still awkwardly have weakass mons in the other end that'd choke in Gen 4 UU. Heck, something like Tinkaton is weak enough to fit nicely in Gen 1-3 without breaking the game balance given its frailty

Now the one "pattern" that'll be and should be kept regardless is the Fire-Water-Grass starter trio. They are needed for new players to figure the type rock-paper-scissors format integral to the franchise. Fangames are free to shake it up though, most aren't for newer players

Ultimately the main thing Pokemon needs to address is reducing "throwaway" mons that sour over the course of the game. And I don't mean mons intentionally terrible (Farfetch'd, Magikarp before evolving, Dunsparce, etc), I mean the early routers that only are good the first 3 gyms. They do this, bosses will be better balanced because they'll have to keep the later game mons closer in strength to early route. And then Legendaries can be stronger than either

Similarly, GF needs to better support defensive playstyles, almost everyone just mashes A on strongest move
 
they either should go back and add all the minute gender differences they haven't bothered with One (01) Generation after debuting the concept, or bite the bullet and pretend they never existed and keep only the 100% dimorphic ones. this "gender differences still exist just not for post-sinnoh mons" situation is nonsensical.
 
I noticed some repeating traits that have been mentionned before so just to make sure No one is fooled (maybe Im alone Then)
Little Normal type early game
-rattata
-sentret
-zigzagoon
-bidoof
-stupid pee-colored mouse
-bunnelby
-yungoos
-wooloo
-lechonk

Little Dark type early game
-poochyena
-purrloin
-alolan raticate somewhy
-nickit
Not every gen has one, But it's a noticeable one.

Little bird early game
-pidgey (not spearow)
-hoothoot
-taillow
-starly
-pidove
-fletchling
-pikipek
-rookidee
-(wattrel) Im not quite sure cause it's not that early game

annoying asf bug that ends up shit most of the time
-caterpie(weedle isn't real)
-spinarak
-wurmple
-kricketot
-sewaddle
-scatterbug
-charjabug
-blipbug
-tarountula (is earlier than nimble and respectsf the "ends up shit" criteria)

Pika clones (hot takes are always funi)
-pikachu
-pichu
-minunplusle
-pachirisu
-emolga
-dedenne
-togedemaru
-morpeko
-pawmi

Mimikyu, marill and such are not pika clones. Sry
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top