My favourite kind of Pokémon games is where the world feels big but still has a fairly linear path (I think that's another reason why I love the Gen 7 games so much)
-
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
pokémon wise i think the bare minimum gen 10 is gonna need to improve the open world concept is level scaling. if the wild mons and gym battles don't get stronger as you do, the game is still kinda defining an order for you.
honestly, level scaling is easier to rationalise than fixed levels even in linear pokémon games - why do i, the player character, happen to live where the weakest pokémon live? how does, say, a sinnoh trainer who lives in sunyshore begin their journey?? meanwhile, level scaling can be explained as "mons too weak for my team hide in fear, mons too strong are not threatened and don't show up". if badges make stronger mons obey, they can make them appear in the wild. etc.
honestly, level scaling is easier to rationalise than fixed levels even in linear pokémon games - why do i, the player character, happen to live where the weakest pokémon live? how does, say, a sinnoh trainer who lives in sunyshore begin their journey?? meanwhile, level scaling can be explained as "mons too weak for my team hide in fear, mons too strong are not threatened and don't show up". if badges make stronger mons obey, they can make them appear in the wild. etc.
i feel like when ppl talk about level scaling, they talk about granular increases matching your level exactly, but i think pokemon could beneft from soft scaling: there are checks in the game, and each set a specific level for your next goal.
for example: you just started your journey, so you have no checks. this means whatever gym you fight will be level 14 with 2 pokemon. once you beat that, youll pass one check so the next challenge will be level 21 with 3 pokemon, etc etc.
I think encounters stand for being more granular though, as pokemon of equal skill/slighly lower are more likely to challenge you. would be fun to add level "repels" that can attract weaker or stronger pokemon too
for example: you just started your journey, so you have no checks. this means whatever gym you fight will be level 14 with 2 pokemon. once you beat that, youll pass one check so the next challenge will be level 21 with 3 pokemon, etc etc.
I think encounters stand for being more granular though, as pokemon of equal skill/slighly lower are more likely to challenge you. would be fun to add level "repels" that can attract weaker or stronger pokemon too
Soft scaling is absolutely better, hard scaling is stupid in most games, and it would be especially stupid in Pokémon. Also soft scaling to major battles could be implemented without issue without changing how the code that defines trainers works, soft scaling could not.
I am actually vehemently opposed to wild Pokémon scaling because, while it is certainly convenient that the player always starts where the region's weakest Pokémon reside, I'd rather take that concession than have the whole ecosystem gradually get stronger and more deadly the stronger the player gets. It's a matter of immersion/cohesiveness with worldbuilding for me. I feel like having dynamic wild Pokémon tables for an entire region would be a coding/planning/implementation nightmare several orders of magnitude greater than just coding in multiple teams for gym leaders.
SwSh introducing Flying Taxis also kind of fixes the issue that trainers starting out in different cities would face, since they can take you anywhere in the region. Heck, Arven even mentions (as a bit of comedic interjection) that they'll go down into Area Zero to get people out of there if they really needed it.
Castersvarog
formerly Maronmario
Also it just makes less sense, like in a Watsonian perspective the world of pokemon some places near towns and city would reasonably be farther from dangerous stronger pokemon. Take a look at Legends, Jubilife village is right next to much calmer groves and flatlands likely because its one of the safest locations for people who aren't originally native to a dangerous land to build because level 60 pokemon wont come in one day and destroy everything easily. Meanwhile from a doylist perspective its always made more sense to have the earlygame be much weaker, while much later locations have much stronger enemies to keep up with the player.
Now, I know damn well y'all ain't dissing GOAT of the Wild!
I actually agree with some of the complaints tho.
Back on topic, ya boi is back to spit some of the hottest takes this thread will ever see. Let's get to it.
Regarding the whole discussion about the type chart, the Fairy-type is actually essential to the game. I had the experience of going back to Stadium 2 and messing with some things, mainly updating some moves and giving every type some kind of reliable STAB.
Dragon-types immediately became a problem.
Buffing Steel and Ice to try and mitigate the issue does not work, at all. Dragon/Fire was an extremely good offensive combo after Outrage got buffed in Gen 4 for a reason, it's just that strong without a type immune to it. This led me to eventually looking at the type interactions and reaching the same conclusion that GF did. A new type was needed, and at that point, you really might as well make Fairy.
I completely disagree with how they handled Fairy though, for various reasons. Bug did not need another type resisting it, and a lot of legendaries should've been retconned to being Fairy-typed. Mew is a very, very obvious example. There's kind of a flavor issue with Fairy as a type tbh. But yeah, Fairy is very blatantly a balance patch type and it shows.
As for other changes... There can't be a lot of them. Things go south FAST. I think right now, the only two that I'd be 100% sure I would do is having Water be weak to Poison and removing the Bug resistance from Fairy.
Psychic isn't bad because it's a bad-type, it's bad because it has two balance patch types holding it back. Yes, Dark and Steel 100% neutralized that threat. I'd argue the biggest problem with it is that it kind of lost its identity by now. When you think of Psychic-types, you think of fast, strong special attackers that are kind of frail, especially on the physical side.
Except now they're not that strong because of power creep and low offensive value, and a lot of other types also have fast, strong special attackers, so why bother with dealing with a type that's weak to common meta-types?
On that note, whoever mentioned bad physical Psychic moves was 100% correct.
Every type should have AT LEAST some reliable STAB. What I mean by that is 90BP, 100% accuracy, and no drawbacks. If you can't see the value in this, go play pre-Gen 4 games, especially Stadium 2.
Does that mean I want types to be bland? Hell no, it's the opposite. I want every type to be able to create an identity, but you can't do that relying on moves like 60BP, 5pp Giga Drain as your main damage-dealing option. I also believe that types should have "signature" moves that aren't as available as regular coverage moves. For example, Discharge is mostly learned by Electric-types unlike Thunderbolt, and boasts a side-effect that is more commonly assigned to that type, in this case, paralysis. However, I do believe said moves should be stronger, otherwise people will still use the generic option.
Speaking of which, TMs.
Whoever decided that Close Combat should not only be a TM but also a well-distributed one was completely out of pocket. A lot of these moves should NOT be easily attainable coverage and one could argue there are too many of them by now.
There's a real issue when it comes to identity in these games on several levels as of late, which brings me to my next point.
Dexit's greatest problem is that there's too much bloat on dexes.
This was already an issue as early as XY, but it's rampant after SwSh. You can't have so many options to build a team so early. Especially taking into account strong, older Pokémon. One or two throwbacks like Ralts in SV? Great, that's probably the best early-throwback mon they had in a minute. Otherwise, you just dilute things too much and the region loses its identity.
When you think of older regions, you think of some mons that are iconic to that region, even if they show up in other regions. For example, Nidoran-M. When you remember Nidoran-M, you probably immediately remember that route west of Viridian City.
There's a case to be made when it comes to replayability, but that's mostly a thing on games like BW1 and FRLG that don't have enough viable options early, which leads to roadblocks.
Sinnoh is notorious for the classic lineup of Starter, Shinx, Starly, Budew, Gible... but there are a LOT of interesting options there like Machop and Buizel, even if they aren't your immediate first or iconic options.
This issue stems from a conscious design in later regions due to other dogwater mechanics like the Exp. All and the increased focus on the exploration of barren plains, but in my opinion, it sucks.
Speaking of the exploration of barren plains... Open-world in Pokémon. It. Cannot. Work.
Technically, it can, but it would require an entirely different approach to what they did in SV. Paldea ironically isn't any more of an open world than Kanto was. Matter of fact, it falls into the exact same pitfalls. These are too abundant and uninteresting to bother listing in such a long post. Instead, I'd rather talk about why it fails at a core level.
Levels.
To make an open world Pokemon game work, you need to take into account the levels of the mons and trainers you'll encounter. There's little to no point in going straight to Glaseado to get bodied by a Lv. 40 1st Stage pseudo, that isn't what an open world entails.
Ideally, Paldea should have had a Metroidvania-like approach to how one encounters mons, in which players could reasonably access all major areas and cities by sticking to the main paths but still having to unlock abilities to reach other sub-areas where stronger mons, trainers, and items lie. This was actually done to gate off the stakes that unlock the Ruinous Legends.
The result of GF's poor decisions regarding Paldea's open world is that it's a mechanic that doesn't add any depth to the game, as any sequence-breaking only serves to make the game easier.
Regarding dexes, I do think the issue comes more from not focusing on the new Pokémon enough, which is an issue that is severe in XY (partially due to no Kalos Pokémon able to Mega Evolve) and even moreso in Sun and Moon despite the Totem Pokémon. This stems from both the accessibility issue and the rarity on too many of the new Pokémon, to the point the player would just stick with the route 1 mons and their starter because the new Pokémon tend to be far too rare for their various power level.
Now, I know damn well y'all ain't dissing GOAT of the Wild!
I actually agree with some of the complaints tho.
Back on topic, ya boi is back to spit some of the hottest takes this thread will ever see. Let's get to it.
Regarding the whole discussion about the type chart, the Fairy-type is actually essential to the game. I had the experience of going back to Stadium 2 and messing with some things, mainly updating some moves and giving every type some kind of reliable STAB.
Dragon-types immediately became a problem.
Buffing Steel and Ice to try and mitigate the issue does not work, at all. Dragon/Fire was an extremely good offensive combo after Outrage got buffed in Gen 4 for a reason, it's just that strong without a type immune to it. This led me to eventually looking at the type interactions and reaching the same conclusion that GF did. A new type was needed, and at that point, you really might as well make Fairy.
I completely disagree with how they handled Fairy though, for various reasons. Bug did not need another type resisting it, and a lot of legendaries should've been retconned to being Fairy-typed. Mew is a very, very obvious example. There's kind of a flavor issue with Fairy as a type tbh. But yeah, Fairy is very blatantly a balance patch type and it shows.
As for other changes... There can't be a lot of them. Things go south FAST. I think right now, the only two that I'd be 100% sure I would do is having Water be weak to Poison and removing the Bug resistance from Fairy.
Psychic isn't bad because it's a bad-type, it's bad because it has two balance patch types holding it back. Yes, Dark and Steel 100% neutralized that threat. I'd argue the biggest problem with it is that it kind of lost its identity by now. When you think of Psychic-types, you think of fast, strong special attackers that are kind of frail, especially on the physical side.
Except now they're not that strong because of power creep and low offensive value, and a lot of other types also have fast, strong special attackers, so why bother with dealing with a type that's weak to common meta-types?
On that note, whoever mentioned bad physical Psychic moves was 100% correct.
Every type should have AT LEAST some reliable STAB. What I mean by that is 90BP, 100% accuracy, and no drawbacks. If you can't see the value in this, go play pre-Gen 4 games, especially Stadium 2.
Does that mean I want types to be bland? Hell no, it's the opposite. I want every type to be able to create an identity, but you can't do that relying on moves like 60BP, 5pp Giga Drain as your main damage-dealing option. I also believe that types should have "signature" moves that aren't as available as regular coverage moves. For example, Discharge is mostly learned by Electric-types unlike Thunderbolt, and boasts a side-effect that is more commonly assigned to that type, in this case, paralysis. However, I do believe said moves should be stronger, otherwise people will still use the generic option.
Speaking of which, TMs.
Whoever decided that Close Combat should not only be a TM but also a well-distributed one was completely out of pocket. A lot of these moves should NOT be easily attainable coverage and one could argue there are too many of them by now.
There's a real issue when it comes to identity in these games on several levels as of late, which brings me to my next point.
Dexit's greatest problem is that there's too much bloat on dexes.
This was already an issue as early as XY, but it's rampant after SwSh. You can't have so many options to build a team so early. Especially taking into account strong, older Pokémon. One or two throwbacks like Ralts in SV? Great, that's probably the best early-throwback mon they had in a minute. Otherwise, you just dilute things too much and the region loses its identity.
When you think of older regions, you think of some mons that are iconic to that region, even if they show up in other regions. For example, Nidoran-M. When you remember Nidoran-M, you probably immediately remember that route west of Viridian City.
There's a case to be made when it comes to replayability, but that's mostly a thing on games like BW1 and FRLG that don't have enough viable options early, which leads to roadblocks.
Sinnoh is notorious for the classic lineup of Starter, Shinx, Starly, Budew, Gible... but there are a LOT of interesting options there like Machop and Buizel, even if they aren't your immediate first or iconic options.
This issue stems from a conscious design in later regions due to other dogwater mechanics like the Exp. All and the increased focus on the exploration of barren plains, but in my opinion, it sucks.
Speaking of the exploration of barren plains... Open-world in Pokémon. It. Cannot. Work.
Technically, it can, but it would require an entirely different approach to what they did in SV. Paldea ironically isn't any more of an open world than Kanto was. Matter of fact, it falls into the exact same pitfalls. These are too abundant and uninteresting to bother listing in such a long post. Instead, I'd rather talk about why it fails at a core level.
Levels.
To make an open world Pokemon game work, you need to take into account the levels of the mons and trainers you'll encounter. There's little to no point in going straight to Glaseado to get bodied by a Lv. 40 1st Stage pseudo, that isn't what an open world entails.
Ideally, Paldea should have had a Metroidvania-like approach to how one encounters mons, in which players could reasonably access all major areas and cities by sticking to the main paths but still having to unlock abilities to reach other sub-areas where stronger mons, trainers, and items lie. This was actually done to gate off the stakes that unlock the Ruinous Legends.
The result of GF's poor decisions regarding Paldea's open world is that it's a mechanic that doesn't add any depth to the game, as any sequence-breaking only serves to make the game easier.
It’s never as severe as GSC and HGSS’ case for the Johto mons, even with the “sequel” reasoning in mind, but this is something to not forget. If the new Pokémon (and newly introduced regional forms and cross-gen evos) were focused first and foremost for availability and accessibility, then more new Pokémon would have chances to be remembered instead of a few at a time.
I used to think the same, but looking at the early routes for both Galar and Paldea, they're packed with brand-new shitmons.
It's simultaneously an issue with too many mons clogging the paint early on and making it hard to choose which ones to add to your team and just kind of making all of them blend together, but also an issue of having too many early-game mons to catch, so late-game mons are just kind of there.
It's a conscious design by Game Freak to make people rotate their parties more, but it's irksome because it makes the games less memorable since you don't get to carry a squad from beginning to end anymore without making them extremely over-leveled.
Thanks, Exp. Share!
Core series Pokémon games are going to have issues with level scaling no matter what happens. This really does feel like a "Pick your poison" situation" with no perfect outcome. If you're the developers of these games, here are your choices regarding the Exp. Share:
And then you have games like X & Y which are going to be stupid easy no matter what happens with the Exp. Share, but we don't talk about that
- Bring back the Exp. All item and open Pandora's box about the problems that might cause
- Take the old approach and force players to grind levels when they might not want to
- Take the Gens 6-7 approach that gives players a toggleable choice, but said choice is between two non-preferred outcomes anyway
- Same as the previous option, but without the toggle- you're stuck with your choice once you make it
- Keep the Exp. Share as it is now and try and obligate players to not be able to enjoyable raise a team for the whole game
None of these regions are tbh. It's ridiculously easy to get incredibly overleveled in any game where the forced Exp. Share is mandatory, to the point one is forced to skip content in order to not break the game.
Having the toggle on the main menu really is the best option if we're being honest. At least players can make a conscious choice about it.
Fainted mons not getting exp also contributes to awkward level curves with the Exp. All. A clean sweep give significantly more total exp than a 0-1 win despite the latter likely needing to increase more before the next major challenge. This feedback loop also partially exists for having Affection bonuses tied to general Friendship (since fainting is the primary way Friendship gets decreased) though it's only really obvious in BDSP because there's no other constraint on Affection chances.
No? Not in SwSh anyway, there were a couple points where the level curve stalled out but mostly my team was within a couple levels of the leaders. As long as you don't grind on the wild Pokémon or use a bunch of exp candy you should be fine. Only time I was significantly above the enemy was the league matches before Leon, but that makes sense given the highest Pokémon levels go from 49 (Marnie and Hop) to 53 (Bede and Nessa) to 54 (Bea/Allister) to 55 (Raihan) and then Leon's Ace is level 65 with only the Rose fight for battles that actually give exp in between. Makes more sense for the levels to be matched to the highest member of the basically continuous line of battles than the lowest and have you have to overcome a 10+ level difference.
Hop and Marnie are literally only 1 level above Raihan. The reason your kind of overleveled right before (right before your likely abruptly underleveled) is because the level curve abruptly becomes near completely flat at last second.
Not gonna really contest this because it's been a minute since I last played SwSh, but "grinding on wilds" is kind of a real issue because y'know, the big draw of the game IS the Wild Area. You can't even catch them mons without getting Exp, which raises the question: "Is it really functional if I have to go out of my way to NOT interact with core exploration features if I don't want to be overleveled?"
Also, early raid mons are busted. You can literally catch mons all but ready to deal with the first Gym and get a lot of extra bonuses like TRs and Candies. They break the level curve by themselves.
i think exp share being on, off or up to the player has too much to do with (STALE SUBJECT WARNING) the level curve and scaling of an individual game for me to be able to have an absolute opinion. i do think that whichever way that goes i prefer a game that encourages replaying by discouraging too much rotation on your team because that's the main reason i replay the pokémon games
In the playthrough that I was referring to I literally caught any Pokemon I came across that I didn't already have. So, still not really an issue.
As for the issue of raids? Raids refresh once per day and if you fail, unlike SV, the raid is gone unless you reset to a save before you attempted it. And the Pokemon available in one star raids are between levels 15-20, unless you've already been grinding your Pokemon aren't gonna be ready to take them on before Milo (your starter will probably be around level 14-16, and the rest in the 12-14 range), and even if you do catch something unless you get a level 20 thing it's not gonna outlevel Milo's Gossifleur (20) off the like 12-ish fights before Milo.
- Hop (Wooloo Lv10, Rookidee LV11, Starter Lv12)
- 4x Yell Grunts with a single level 9 each (2 Nickit and 2 Zigzagoon-G)
- 6 randos on Route 3 with 4 level 12s (Vulpix, Budew, Gossifleur, Purrloin), 3 level 13s (Pancham, Skwovet, Sizzlipede) and 2 level 14s (Delibird and Dottler)
- 4x Workers in Galar Mine #1 with 5 level 14s (Roggenrola, Timburr [x3], Diglett) and 2 level 15s (Drilbur, Rolycoly) between them
- Bede [Solosis Lv13, Gothita Lv15, Hatenna Lv16] which you might actually be underleveled for (most of mine was level 15 for this fight)
- 2x Breeders and 4x PokeKids on Route 4 with 10 total mons, 6 level 15s (Butterfree, Pikachu, Elektrike, Lotad, Milcery, Eevee), 4 level 14s (Meowth-G, Seedot, Joltik, Grubbin)
- Milo's 3 Gym Trainers (5 total mons, Gossifleur Lv16, Budew Lv16, Oddish Lv17, Bounsweet Lv17, and Oddish Lv17)
Also most of what you can get from 1* Raids isn't great, and most of it's available at basically the same level and place.
Even a level 20 is only gonna be like level 22/23-ish max even if it personally defeats every Trainer from Motostoke to Milo.
A guaranteed perfect IV and TR of the same type goes a long way, because more often than not that means a mon with good STAB while Milo is running with Magical Leaf.
But yeah, I'll need to replay it to have specific details, it is what it is.
QuentinQuonce
formerly green_typhlosion
There's legit an interview with Masuda where someone asks him this ["doesn't it make life quite difficult if you're a trainer starting out on your journey but you live in an area surrounded by strong Pokemon"] and it boggles my mind that he didn't respond with precisely this justification. Instead he just sort of laughed and went "yeah I guess it would be really hard for people who live in those areas, oh well"
Castersvarog
formerly Maronmario
Man I just want the exp share to have a toggle. We got this right a decade ago with XY and later SUMO? Just do that, then at least you could interact with a lot of the games content like raids, auto battle and even regular trainer battles without worrying about over leveling instead of taking three left turns when there’s a right turn available.
I agree with the overall sentiment, but raids don’t give you experience directly. Just candies, which is one of the things I really like about doing raids during the main game since it gives me a little more control over that.
Again, in SwSh you could fight every single trainer while using the same six Pokémon for the entire game and not be overleveled.
SV's level curve is worse because there's so much required content compared to most games but they refuse to let enemy trainers have Pokémon over level 70 during the main story for some reason.
HMs were the best tools players were given for overworld exploration and the replacements are either lamer versions of HMs at best (Ride Pager or whatever it was called in SM) or just straight up worse/non existent (SwSh/SV).
On a similar note I liked the large amount of required HMs in DPPt.
On a similar note I liked the large amount of required HMs in DPPt.
Last edited: