• Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#41
Damn connection.. I'll try to re-write my post, hopefully I won't forget or tread quicker anything.

GallantChaddymn posted...
because Pokemon game shave been yearly releases as of late, each game introducing clear additions and changes geared towards changing/shaking up the competitive meta.

I have issues with yearly releases too, as I mentioned in the bit above regarding the "requiring more time and effort, which I don't think is gonna happen, unfortunately", but I don't necessarily think that making each new Pokémon "special" is necessary nor the way to go to make this already continuously evolving meta, to keep interesting, the absolute necessary way to go.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Competitive battlers don't care about designs tho. And for SinglepLayer, designs while nice, don't by themselves make the game more fun or engaging. You need something to back it up to properly deliver and solidify the identity of the pokemon the design is attached to. It's why pokemon like Blaziken were such a stand out. It's not just a Fire Fighting starter. It's the one you remembered for having Flaming Kick attacks, and naturally learned the move Blaze Kick as a validation of that.

Well, competitives don't care strictly about designs for why they play, but they don't hurt, and single players arguably care more about the Pokémon themselves than their custom Abilities, especially the casuals, which is most of the in-game crowd; to make the game fun and engaging, you need to have new stuff in it (by virtue of how we work as humans).

But, again, do not get me wrong: I'm not saying this is a yes or no issue, to "let's not make custom Abilities anymore"; it's simply about a bit of "restraint"/balance, and that making "excessively custom" Abilities/Moves that are therefore hardly appliable to other Mons (even if not at release of said custom thing) is not really the way to go and only builds the amount of "special cases" one """needs""" to remember, which is arguably harder, to the casual audience, than simply remembering about a design or even deducing info from that design when they see and re-see it.

GallantChaddymn posted...
And in regards to balance, you can't too drastically shake up the types of pokemon distributed, so "different pidgeys" isn't so much a simplification as an observation of the inevitable end result of this practice.

Like, out of all the regional birds, the only ones pre-Gen 6 that were interesting or different was hoothoot line, and only because Gen 2 still had Pidgey to fulfill its original intended role.

See, I don't really agree with this: I don't think a custom Move/Ability is necessary for making the regional bird feel more unique, and even just a Type change from /Normal (when appropriate for the environment ideally) is enough to make it stand out; and making it stand out every time is not even necessary, as the most important thing the regional bird can do is work for the Region that it's in, even if, when enlarging the scope to the franchise as a whole, it only has Stats, Movepool etc. to differentiate it from another instead of a custom Ability.

GallantChaddymn posted...
I don't see how this is "bloat" really. You are gonna have to be less nebulous if you wanna properly convey why this is "too much". Not saying i I think it is or isn't. im saying your argument isn't really substantive here.

It's what I mentioned above: I was mainly referring to non re-appliable custom "special" stuff made for a specific Pokémon in mind, and only that; it's fine to have a Mimikyu, but if every new Pokémon was that, it would needlessly bloat the amount of "special cases" without really being of substance, either. It's something along the lines of "if everything special, nothing is".
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#42
Looks like it actually made me post the post the first time, but it didn't let me see it until now.. brilliant. Well, let's try this again with the rest, hopefully with no more complications.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Well we are gonna have to disagree on this one, because I don't think it really can be argued against.
Even if a pokemon doesn't appeal to me specifically, I can very easily admit to it being more interesting if, well, they gave it an interesting attributes that make it stand out and memorable among its peers.
I think you are conflating "being more interesting" with "i like it", which i trust you can make the distinction between. This in turn would explain your previous stances. You care more about the designs of the creatures, and thus would rather more raw number of monsters to increase the probability of you liking more of them, rather than having a low amount of ones that, while more thought out, you probably wouldn't personally care about regardless by virtue of it simply not appealing to you.

While i think it can be argued that this position is kinda selfish, I can't say I see this position as necessarily wrong. I do think it would serve us both to frame them more clearly and honestly tho. Would save u and me on time and character space in any case, lol.


I can I guess see how it could look like that, but I don't think that's necessarily the case: my favorite Gen, design-wise especially, is 2, and that is on the low number of Pokémon introduced, for a Gen. I simply don't find that a "more complicated"/thought-out/concept-filled Pokémon is automatically virtually better than a simpler one; you can argue they're more intricate, but that does not equate better, and it's precisely because of the subjective nature of what "better" means, alongside the IMO objective fact that adding details/concepts/etc. does not automatically make something more worth it, that introducing less Pokémon to pursue this vague and subjective "quality" is not the right way to go about it.

The only objective measure there is quantity, and I think there's a certain amount that needs to be reached to have a satisfactory in-game for the majority; of course, this isn't something set in stone, so that's why there's wiggle room and it's not like "they need to introduce 150 new Pokémon every time, regardless of setting, etc.", but I find Gen 6 and 7 really lacking in that regard.

GallantChaddymn posted...
As for options, this is only true if the pokemon is actually a real opinion as opposed to dex filler.
saying you have 120 new mons and therefore 120 options is quite the misnomer.

Accounting for legendaries and evolutions alone cuts that down considerably, and after that, you have to account for pokemon with the express purpose of being early game fodder for the enemies to use, as well as which ones end up box fodder for the pokedex.

Now you just said that you don't believe that the quality and quantity are anti proportional, but this simply can't be taken seriously. There Is at the end of the day only a finite amount of dev time that goes into any given game. Moreso, there is only a finite amount that goes into it before it stops being worth it as well. There is an adage about making content most your playerbase will actually never enjoy, and while
I don't strictly adhere to it, it does have merit.

Refer to what I stated above, but also, sure, it's hard to quantify but let's make an extreme example to drive the point across: if you were asking 20 artists to come up with 3000 designs in the span of 1 year Vs if you were doing the same, but with 20 designs instead of 3000, obviously there would be at least the high chance of the 20 being more cured than the 3000.

(Continues..)
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#43
(...)

But:
- I simply don't think anything like that has ever been reached in Pokémon, as there was never a significant drop in quality (which isn't objective, anyway) in direct correlation with the number of mons introduced (case in point, I don't think any of the "lower number" Gens have necessarily higher quality compared to the "higher ones");
- a number of new mons is still necessary because of what I described above; obviously not everyone agrees on a set quantity, but I don't think either 6 or 7 did enough;
- of course those options would have to be taken into account (especially if they keep making so many new ones unusable for the in-game, like UBs); that's actually even more of a reason why they need to make more new ones than this.

Apologies for potential overlaps: having to partly re-write and partly copy-paste.. 😤.

GallantChaddymn posted...
All this is compounded to the undeniably enormous amount of creatures we are starting to reach, which regardless of if or I have issues with creates issues for gamefreak themselves as time goes on, as well as other developers that have to manage the Pokemon series.

The overall number should not hinder the experience of each game, IMO, so the better of each single in-game is more worth it than the perceived expansiveness of the franchise as a whole, especially now that they've put less of an emphasis on catching the entirety of the National Dex (which is not something that I agree with at all, but that's another can of worms).

There are also other series with far more monsters, so I really don't think this is an issue, at least not yet. I would also argue that making so many Forms still increases the "convolutedness" and amount of stuff even if it doesn't necessarily increase the Pokédex number.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Well, as i've said, there is only so much you CAN do with gyms, and while i don't think we necessarily have reached the absolute limit, my point is if we keep this up we are gonna hit it sooner than later, and at that point we will have to deal with a more jarring transition period of which I'd like to avoid.

Mh, I'm not sure I agree with this, or that the top is even close to be reached, but I obviously understood this is what you meant: again, my stance is simply not doing something different every time, especially for the sake of it, as variety in gameplay can be achieved without needing to frame it differently than Gyms.

GallantChaddymn posted...
I'm not saying we have to get rid of gyms. What i find necessary is to not strictly stick to them. We should play a Pokemon game and question whether gyms will be wut we do as opposed to expecting them, is what i am saying. That's what i find necessary if only because it will not only open up the game sin a non intrusive way, but prevent long term disaster from occurring in the future. Its less about it being necessary to change gyms, as it is necessary to not stick to them exclusively.

But, again, I was not saying to strictly stay with them for the rest of the franchise either; I'm simply saying to not remove them or change them in frame unless you have something really good in their place or a completely different idea of how the game should progress.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Glad we agree on something, lol. All we can hope is that LG is in fact their way of shoveling all that nonsense somewhere else so that gen 8 can actually fix the series' problems.
But as ive said, Ill believe it when i see it.

We agree on quite a few things, and disagree on others; here, we agree again: I'd certainly like to think that the excessive hand-holdiness and casualization of the series will be more relegated to the LG series and that the core games can go back to being more of a game, but I don't actually think GF is going to do that, unfortunately.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Deadshot2802

Deadshot2802
1 month ago#44
Tales_of_101 posted...
Some of these have been taken for Let's Go (IMO the good features).

Here's what I'd like to see:
All Pokemon can follow you/ Can ride on larger Pokemon.(Maybe smaller Pokemon can be held or ride on the trainers shoulder or head)
Pokemon can find hidden items for you
Pokemon appear in the wild (No random Battles)
Can battle wild Pokemon (Just like previous games)
Pokemon appear as their actual sizes in battle.
Roto items returns (Or at least something similar)
Gyms return and there is a Dark type gym
Grass, Normal and Fairy Elite Four members
Poison type Legendary
New Megas
Bigger Postgame
National Dex returns
Event items return
Triple and Rotation battles return
Hyper Training return and is better than before.

Obviously i doubt all of these will happen but It's what I'd personally like to see. If I think of anything else I'll add it to my list.

But what are your hopes for this/these games?


All pokemon can follow/be carried/be ridden but option can be turned off. I liked having my starter follow me in HG but plodding around with a Lugia behind me felt wrong.

Buddy system - One pokemon that gets benefits like slight EXP and stats boost. Mostly important for cutscenes where the NPC always names your first slot as your best buddy. So sick of hearing Kukui say "Together, you and Dugtrio can conquer the world!" when my starter is right there.

Can pick pokemon to send out each battle, or you can select which pokemon is your follow even if not in first slot.

Rotation, Triple, and Horde battles return, along with new 5 vs 5 trainer battles or hopefully 6 vs 6 battles.

Gyms and Elite 4 with large postgame. Lots of sidequests that actually mean something and arent just little minigames.

Held items.

Mega Stones and Z crystals functioning like the SM anime - trainer holds all Z crystals and allows all pokemon to use all options.

National Dex. Its so hard to keep track of missing mons from my collection when half of them arent even recognised by the game.

New Megas for all Generations and previous starters except 6th Gen who all get a Battle Bond esque form
PSN: Deadshot2802. Playing: Dark Souls Remastered
Nintendo 3DS Friend Code: 4614 2881 2127 "Stephen" Playing: Pokemon Sun, UltraMoon

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#45
Andrex_93 posted...
I don't really agree with this: they can very well create a good deal of variety without having to resort to having custom things for the Pokémon. Having the regional Type be not /Normal when it fits in the Region, for example, is a good way to spin the trope, but it's far from the only way.


I literally just explained why they can't do that.
some types by their very design are restricted in both availability and the immediacy of which you end up dealing with the type for balance reasons.

Normal types being the bulk of what you find early on isn't an accident or the result of lack of imagination of creativity.

That's why I talked about a simplification; at best you can argue that Pokémon didn't strain too far from Pidgey in the past, but, even if that was true, I wouldn't say that's automatically a bad thing but I'm also not saying that I'd do that.


Pokemon cease to truly feel new when they are functionally the exact same but with a different design.
Again,with this many pokemon you HAVE to actually think about helping them cave out an identity at Having 5 Pidgeys might have not been a big deal back then, but by Gen 8, it most certainly is.
Looking at a design of a pokemon throw attacks isn't all the enjoyment that comes from using said Pokemon. Learning about it and playing around its strengths and weaknesses as it carves itself a niche on your team I'd argue is what brings the design to life to begin with, and that is severely diminished when that identity is "Pidgey 8.0".

Andrex_93 posted...
I don't necessarily think that making each new Pokémon "special" is necessary nor the way to go to make this already continuously evolving meta, to keep interesting, the absolute necessary way to go.


Pokemon meta isn't continuously evolving. it hasn't been since gen 4.
nowadays, Metas are basically "figured out" within 3 weeks to a month of the game's release. only being shook by the introduced elements to meta via the release of games afterwards. Which is why i find the focus on competitive to be futile. You can't really do anything to rectify it save for literally turning pokemon into a regularly patched competitive game, which obviously would completely throw single player to the wayside, something even GF aren't foolish enough to do.

single players arguably care more about the Pokémon themselves than their custom Abilities, especially the casuals, which is most of the in-game crowd; to make the game fun and engaging, you need to have new stuff in it


The issue I take her eis you make a distinction between "the pokemon itself" and its abilities, moves, etc, effectively saying that the only thing intrinsic to the pokemon is the design, which i find foolish for reasons i described earlier.

Andrex_93 posted...
"if everything special, nothing is".

AH, i see where you are coming from. I don't agree with it, but i get your position now.
"Bloat" is far and away a proper way to describe it tho.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#46
GallantChaddymn posted...
I literally just explained why they can't do that.
some types by their very design are restricted in both availability and the immediacy of which you end up dealing with the type for balance reasons.

Normal types being the bulk of what you find early on isn't an accident or the result of lack of imagination of creativity.

Never said this wasn't the case, but there's much more wiggle room than "make this have a custom Ability/Move or it's literally Pidgey again". Again, it's about balance and a bit of both, not just one or the other.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Pokemon cease to truly feel new when they are functionally the exact same but with a different design.
Again,with this many pokemon you HAVE to actually think about helping them cave out an identity at Having 5 Pidgeys might have not been a big deal back then, but by Gen 8, it most certainly is.
Looking at a design of a pokemon throw attacks isn't all the enjoyment that comes from using said Pokemon. Learning about it and playing around its strengths and weaknesses as it carves itself a niche on your team I'd argue is what brings the design to life to begin with, and that is severely diminished when that identity is "Pidgey 8.0".

I disagree with this, but it's pretty much the same as above + what I already stated: unless wanting to take a competitive focus, making the in-games good is the most important thing, and this does not equate to having every mon have custom X; good world-building is also a factor, and I'd argue having different new mons in new Regions is more important than having a few of them with custom stuff and a sea of old.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Pokemon meta isn't continuously evolving. it hasn't been since gen 4.
nowadays, Metas are basically "figured out" within 3 weeks to a month of the game's release. only being shook by the introduced elements to meta via the release of games afterwards. Which is why i find the focus on competitive to be futile. You can't really do anything to rectify it save for literally turning pokemon into a regularly patched competitive game, which obviously would completely throw single player to the wayside, something even GF aren't foolish enough to do.

I don't agree with this, either, but let me clarify, I'm obviously talking about VGC when I speak about "competitive": the VGC ruleset, alongside the new Pokémon inrtoduced and the Pokémon put in a Regional Dex, is partly what makes the meta feel fresher for a good while; making "special Pokémon" does not directly play into that besides maybe at the very beginning, and, even then, there's the argument again of potentially upsetting the balance because of wanting to introduce new custom gimmicks for the sake of diversity.

GallantChaddymn posted...
The issue I take her eis you make a distinction between "the pokemon itself" and its abilities, moves, etc, effectively saying that the only thing intrinsic to the pokemon is the design, which i find foolish for reasons i described earlier.

I was generalizing the casual perspective, not really what I thought, but I think it's pretty unarguable that the design and more general characteristics of the mon are what will be interacted more with throughout the game, as custom Abilities and Moves don't always come into play the whole way through; furthermore, again, it's not about not having any at all, it's all about how many (especially Vs how many there are in total).
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#47
GallantChaddymn posted...
AH, i see where you are coming from. I don't agree with it, but i get your position now.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want them to stop putting thought into designs and just making 300 clones every new pair etc.: again, it's a matter of nuance and balance.. Simply put, not overdoing it.

GallantChaddymn posted...
"Bloat" is far and away a proper way to describe it tho.

It is in the sense of, even if per absurd, they would keep applying that approach for every new Pokémon.

Was it necessary to introduce both Dazzling and Queenly Majesty in the same Gen? No, but it was nice to make them more fitting to their respective mons.
Do I hope that at least they make use of these for other mons, past ones even, too, instead of just forgetting about these and them being literally "custom made X thing used once and then piled on top of everything else"? I think you know the answer.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#48
Andrex_93 posted...
I can I guess see how it could look like that, but I don't think that's necessarily the case: my favorite Gen, design-wise especially, is 2, and that is on the low number of Pokémon introduced, for a Gen. I simply don't find that a "more complicated"/thought-out/concept-filled Pokémon is automatically virtually better than a simpler one; you can argue they're more intricate, but that does not equate better, and it's precisely because of the subjective nature of what "better" means, alongside the IMO objective fact that adding details/concepts/etc. does not automatically make something more worth it, that introducing less Pokémon to pursue this vague and subjective "quality" is not the right way to go about it.


See, i never argued about "better" because "better" is subjective in of itself. The argument i made was "more interesting", which surely u can admit to?
Gen 2 is also my favourite, but the pokemon distribution, for the most part have seldom to do with it. Most of the reason Gen 2 is my fave was because of everything else about the game, as is the case for most people. Now, you have not made your stance clear as of yet, so i am not about to assert positions for you, but I nonetheless find it unlikely that Stantler, Dunsparce or Qwilfish were part of the equation in regards to it being your favorite, lol.

You make an argument of an appeal to simplicity, but i wouldn't even call the majority of these pokemon particularly complex tho. They just had more thought put in to them.
What is so complex about Toxapex? It has a signature move that compliments its design. Protect + Poison status. seems pretty straightforward to me. Tsareena is a pokemon that is known for its kicks and haughtily stomping on its adversaries. has a signature kick move, learns moves like stop, etc.

I think you are overselling this idea that they are "super complexe" personally.

As opposed to Oddish which just gets absorb and powers because all the other poison grass types do.

The only objective measure there is quantity,


This is strictly false lol. I've given examples up above alone to dispel this. You are conflating whether you personally care how well thought out a pokemon is with whether it is objectively more well thought out and engaging as a result of being more well thought out. which again, do not think can be argued.

and I think there's a certain amount that needs to be reached to have a satisfactory in-game for the majority;[...] but I find Gen 6 and 7 really lacking in that regard


And I disagree and already gave my reasons why. Gen 2 did just fine without it.
Gen 6 and 7 were off by about 20 mons, which is (assuming they didn't bloat with legendaries like they tend to do) only roughly 7 actual pokemon lines.
I disagree with the notion that this would make/break things in regard to the number of mons.
People were honestly just spoiled by gen 5 imho.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: GallantChaddymn

GallantChaddymn
1 month ago#49
Andrex_93 posted...
Refer to what I stated above, but also, sure, it's hard to quantify but let's make an extreme example to drive the point across: if you were asking 20 artists to come up with 3000 designs in the span of 1 year Vs if you were doing the same, but with 20 designs instead of 3000, obviously there would be at least the high chance of the 20 being more cured than the 3000.
But:
- I simply don't think anything like that has ever been reached in Pokémon, as there was never a significant drop in quality (which isn't objective, anyway) in direct correlation with the number of mons introduced (case in point, I don't think any of the "lower number" Gens have necessarily higher quality compared to the "higher ones");


I mean, I'd argue otherwise personally, but that isn't really necessary.
This is a False equivalency.
You aren't going to notice a substantial difference between two high end numbers compared to when you compare a high end number and a low end number.

You can argue Gen 4 doesn't strictly have better designs than 5 despite having less new mons, but both had over a hundred regardless. At that point, you kinda reached a cut off point.

By contrast, I'd sincerely argue that Gen 6 and 7 have the BEST overall dexes in terms of quality proportionality to other gens, simply because it doesn't have nearly as much fodder or dead weight to hold it down.

I may not hate Stantler for example, but i also only remember it exists because it is so forgettable, it became memorable retroactively as a result of how forgettable it is, which given the overall intrinsic need to be marketable that comes with a Pokemon, is worse than being "bad" but interesting and memorable in the grand scheme of things.

- a number of new mons is still necessary because of what I described above; obviously not everyone agrees on a set quantity, but I don't think either 6 or 7 did enough;

- of course those options would have to be taken into account (especially if they keep making so many new ones unusable for the in-game, like UBs); that's actually even more of a reason why they need to make more new ones than this.


this argument is silly. You are saying them making to many of X is why they should make EVEN MORE to compensate. xD

The overall number should not hinder the experience of each game, IMO, so the better of each single in-game is more worth it than the perceived expansiveness of the franchise as a whole, especially now that they've put less of an emphasis on catching the entirety of the National Dex (which is not something that I agree with at all, but that's another can of worms).


you are being short sighted here. Every individual Pokemon added creates long term commitment issues and hangups for game freak and other organizations as time goes on. They have to keep updating and implementing these pokemon into the following game every time, introduce ways to either make sure they are available or transferable, etc, update their learnsets, breeding partners, etc

This is even more hindering towards people that make spinoffs and handle the anime, etc.
The other month, a friend of mine and i were discussing why they never made a sequel to Pokemon Snap,especially given how perfect the WiiU gamepad would have been for it, and ultimately came to the conclusion that the sheer number of Pokemon was the result, as they would have to make habitats and interactions for far too many to justify spending on dev time for the game, while also not having a justifiable reason to pick and choose some over others. It's something that has also hindered the PMD series as well for similar reasons.
The more pokemon they introduce means more work on top the whatever need be done to get the Gen off the floor in the first place in the future every time.
FC: 1977 - 0616 - 0040
Gallant was here

User Info: Andrex_93

Andrex_93
1 month ago#50
GallantChaddymn posted...
See, i never argued about "better" because "better" is subjective in of itself. The argument i made was "more interesting", which surely u can admit to?

But you mentioned my stance regarding quantity vs quality, and higher quality implies better, and, even then, "more interesting" is far from an objective measure.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Gen 2 is also my favourite, but the pokemon distribution, for the most part have seldom to do with it. Most of the reason Gen 2 is my fave was because of everything else about the game, as is the case for most people. Now, you have not made your stance clear as of yet, so i am not about to assert positions for you, but I nonetheless find it unlikely that Stantler, Dunsparce or Qwilfish were part of the equation in regards to it being your favorite, lol.

The Pokémon, how they were designed and integrated were certainly part of it, and I truly think that, with a few additions yet to the roster (again, can't find my more "precise" estimates, atm) it would have been even better.

GallantChaddymn posted...
Toxapex and Tsareena bit

This again goes into I guess the vagueness/differences in how people perceive designs and terms in this case, lol. Again, these are just two examples, and I was speaking in general terms; personally I like that they made Tsareena evolve via learning Stomp and its new Move was pretty crucial to give it a STAB and tying it to its theme.

Toxapex has weird proportions that made it look exaggerated compared to Mareanie and honestly make its model look kind of busy from "afar", as you can't really distinguish its facial/main-body features well because of how, IMO excessively, big its shell ends up being; but I'm not saying I have an issue with it having Baneful Bunker.

Again, it's a more general thing, not something necessarily specific; I guess, if I had to point towards a gimmick I feel is more misguided, it would be Golisopod, but, even then...

The important thing I was saying is to not make every new Pokémon rely on something like that to stand out. Again, having Mimikyu is fine, having a few of them is even good (provided they don't make for a large percentage of the total) but having every single one of them being it is not the correct way to go about it, IMO.

GallantChaddymn posted...
As opposed to Oddish which just gets absorb and powers because all the other poison grass types do.

And one can very well make the argument that initial mons were too simple, even though there's nothing wrong with that and it was also needed to build the foundation; even then, you can argue about too much simplicity (and all I've been saying all this time is "balance" so a bit of both) but, with the modern expansions of Movepools etc., even Pokémon in those quantities can come out as being different, especially in the context of specific in-games, which is the most important thing, pretty much, regarding this.

GallantChaddymn posted...
This is strictly false lol. I've given examples up above alone to dispel this. You are conflating whether you personally care how well thought out a pokemon is with whether it is objectively more well thought out and engaging as a result of being more well thought out. which again, do not think can be argued.

Again, more thought-out =/= better is all I'm saying.

GallantChaddymn posted...
[..]I disagree with the notion that this would make/break things in regard to the number of mons.
People were honestly just spoiled by gen 5 imho.

Simply saying the former has a role in it, big or small depending on the quantity of the addition, and the latter might very well be the case, but I wouldn't disdain another Unova-like approach, if appropriate geographically. Hoenn would be my preferred one, though.
"Actors are agents of change. A film, a piece of theater, a piece of music, or a book can make a difference. It can change the world." - Alan Rickman
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon for Nintendo Switch
  3. What are your personal hopes for Pokemon 2019?
  • Topic Archived