There's a lot going on with your response but I hope you'll forgive me if I narrow in on what I think are the two most important points you raised. Because
JeezNuts' response also clarifies what
Pokedom10 was saying about games feeling "flowcharty", this post can also be considered my response to those arguments which it does appear I misinterpreted. Thanks to
CoolMan6001 for pointing this misunderstanding out.
1. Rank metrics aside, perhaps a more nuanced observation for you to dive into is whether some amount of skill expression has been lost because gen 8 randoms is a matter of playing offense with what you're given rather than playing what you're given, which tended to require a wider mastery of playstyles in past gens. I don't think this particular point I am making is the most convincing for the anti-Dynamax argument because you could just as well argue this variant of offense is harder to play, but I'd like to hear your thoughts on it.
This is an excellent question and I must admit that I don't have any hard data on this, so it's just based on my
perception of the metagame. To me, I would say that while it's fair to say that in Gen. 8 you are playing offensive in the grand scheme of things, that's hardly to say that stall, disruption and other "slower" playstyles have been phased out or aren't vital to master. A lot of games I have played still require careful usage of stall techniques if your team is set up that way and I've still have had to make prudent switches and calculated risks to break through stall. So I would argue that mastery of these vastly different playstyles is essential still, both in creating the right circumstances to maximize/mitigate Dynamax (depending on the game) and absolutely in games where Dynamax is used early to mid-game. I of course have to concede the point a game can no longer be purely stall* and that the roles of Pokemon aren't as rigid as before, allowing a potential escape from a fixated template of how the game will proceed but I personally enjoy this. No longer are games confined to a specific course of events, creating more dynamic patchworks where knowing which playstyle to pick and what risks it carries is essential and being able to switch from style to style
within a game is the key to victory. That is, the skill-level and mastery of different playstyles is still there, just that rather than defining an entire battle, it defines specific segments and events.
*There is a somewhat minor exception in that if you time your Dynamax correctly with the right Pokemon, you can get two Max Guards in and nearly invalidate the enemy's Dynamax. At this point, can we even think of Dynamax as an instance of explosive action or is it really that proper stalling just looks a bit differently now?
4. I mostly agree. There are pokemon that get more out of Dynamax than others, but that's not what you want to identify when you choose your Dynamax. You want to pick what Dynamax gets you the most value in that particular game. I do want to kind of nitpick some wording/point something out though:
"In fact, reducing your thinking and playstyle to "only these Pokemon are worth Dynamaxing" is what gives the illusion of a stale metagame and it ignores the variance and surprises that Randoms throws at you."
Variance in what ends up getting Dynamaxed, absolutely. Variance in the way the game plays or the way Dynamax is used? Not so much. P1 is going to Dynamax first in an attempt to sweep or wallbreak P2 to the point that they can't come back. P1 will succeed or fail. P2 will Dynamax to either stop that of P1 or after P1's Dynamax is done to try to do the same to him. Just about every other interactions in the game are secondary; they all build into an explosion of offense. This is what people are talking about when they mention a "flowchart" with different initial positions. Other interactions in the game are reduced to how they affect either player's ability to Dynamax and then close out the game. There is a very limited number of ways the game can go, and all of them hinge on the success of one or both players' Dynamax, because it was a forgone conclusion that the wincon would involve the Dynamax because this is Gen8. To me, that is actually staleness. You mention that the sheer number of pokemon that can be a wincon due to Dynamax proves the meta is not stale, but I am of the opinion that if they all depend on Dynamax to be a wincon, then that is the real illusion of diversity. Your wincon isn't really the mon. It's the Dynamax. It's certainly not like megas, anyway. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on all that though.
Thoughts?
This right here is the crucial question to answer. I think what it comes down to is how much of a step back we take when we examine games with Dynamax as an option. You're right that Dynamaxing is an indispensable aspect of battles and it's near-mandatory to Dynamax if you're facing off against an opponent of the same caliber so from this "big picture" perspective, I can understand why this metagame can appear stale as it will occur in every battle and as such, both players must play accordingly. But I find myself asking why this perspective feels so contrary to my own experiences and I think the best way I can phrase it is this:
if Dynamax is to be an integral aspect of every battle, then does it streamline player choices and limit the decisions made at each game state?
And once we examine this question, I think we find that as a core component of battles, Dynamaxing is
anything but creating the same battle experience over and over again. You're right that a lot of the early to mid game comes down to setting up a successful Dynamax
BUT how this achieved varies wildly from game to game and from team composition to team composition. We're talking a vast number of turns, each full of intricate flowcharts, endless mindgames and possible dramatic twists and turns that a battle can take. In other words, once we examine the game on a turn-per-turn basis, Dynamax is creating entirely new playstyles and ways of reaching an optimal Dynamax. Certainly Dynamax itself is inevitable but none of the moves that created
that particular Dynamax at that turn and for that particular strategy were. For these reasons it feels a bit unfair to reduce a battle to a singular event for that singular event could have been many different things at many different points in the game and each would have provided a radically different experience, complete with different synergies and interactions between different Pokemon and entire teams, both the player's and the enemies'. In this sense, in making one mechanic a core part of gameplay we are sacrificing some streamlining of how a battle can be seen as a whole but in its place we are getting vast, impressive networks of game states that force unique interactions that would not exist had this mechanic never been introduced. As you note, the wincon often is the Dynamax but how that wincon manifests itself is really up to the creativity of the player and its this creativity and ability to repurpose the game to the player's liking that I find so refreshing. It's a kind of power and thinking that didn't exist before and won't exist once this feature is removed, be it because Gen 9 comes around or because the mechanic does not survive this suspect test.
To end--and going back a bit to the first question you asked me--I do think a somewhat unfortunate byproduct of Dynamax as a mechanic is that the general "feel" of a battle is indeed in the more offensive side. I think anyone defending Dynamax would be remiss without at least acknowledging this. But while this is absolutely a more offensive-minded metagame, I want to point out how much variety exists
within those offensive options. Is it really a damning problem to be able to say that Gen 8 is, as a whole, offensive minded while noting that preceding the bursts of offense are a whole pastiche of playstyles and the way offensive plans are concocted are changing on a turn per turn basis? This, to me, is the virtue of Dynamax. It created an offensive metagame without the offensive options ever feeling repetitive or mindless--no longer is it just Swords Dance and wait to see if another Pokemon outspeeds you/walls you, instead, its a delightful plethora of options that require strong consideration from the very start of the game.
Anyway, thanks for your questions. They were very thought-provoking and I just hope I was able to properly express my thoughts.
