Where I end up thinking of open games as a waste of developer effort is that nonlinear progression only really matters if the game is going to be replayed. My first time through, any path will be new to me, even a linear one. Only on subsequent playthroughs can non-linearity make things fresher in comparison. There's the barest essence of this,
but Metroidvanias also lend themselves to it really well since they can shift from linear to non-linear as the player learns more advanced techniques. However, the kind of game most commonly thought of as "open world" feels simply too large to have a lot of replayability. Pokemon probably has it even worse on the "designed for multiple playthroughs" front since you want to maintain the ability to hop into your postgame mode of choice. So I do find it really hard to see what an open design actually does to improve a Pokemon game.
-
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.
Unpopular opinions
- Thread starter antemortem
- Start date
It will forever get me that Age of Calamity retconned BotW cuz the story was so bare there, and expanded on Link and Zelda's relationship, alongside other chars. Only for ToK to not take anything from it
Link is so empty there, even for LoZ standards. WW is noticeably emotive, TP you have motive in part of your village getting ransacked, and SS Link grew up with Zelda, so he has personal connections with saving her. BotW you're flatter than Wes in Colosseum, and diary entries are way too missable/tell no showy
I don't even play Zelda, and I know it was more than BotW's "nothing" and complete failure of being a fantasy dystopia. Majora's Mask at least had big gates and NPCs beyond Zelda freaking out about things. BotW it's like Ganon and the Moblins don't exist for them, and ToK is similar. Sonic Frontiers had similar issues of emptiness cuz as you said, it was a trend. Open World stops the appeal when sandboxxing feels less than Minecraft, and Pokemon's anemic OW movement for so many gens barely supports it
I agree that the more linear DLCs worked, and for once I can respect GF for the char interactions. But base is lame outside the map design cuz again...not well focused
yeah to me open world is a concept where on paper its kinda like peak gaming right? just go wherever, the ideal of exploration without the limitations of real life. But it needs SOOOOO much content to support it, and unless youre willing to do that for a decade or more, your game will have to sacrifice many things to reach the bare minimum, let alone a good or great game! Not all devs and certainly not all franchises or game ideas should be open world, its a very niche type of game thats not being treated like that.
and like, i agree with the idea that pokemon would be good for open world. but in practice? ignoring all the above issues, we havent even reach good plot and gamefreak has been struggling with linear exploration, which is MUCH more approachable. this franchise should not be jumping to something as demanding as open world when it cannot even get a single benefit from it! its not like paldea is particularly replayable over other pokemon games, and id argue its probably less as youre encouraged to work on your save file with new raids and events etc. the exploration isnt memorable, any atmosphere you have gets destroyed by the graphics (listen idc about graphics but we need to be real here. open worlds are as much about doing things as it is seeing things and if your world is ugly, youre not getting people to explore it lol), its all just the same formula of catching every mon in the area, battling the trainers and fighting the boss/gym/whatever.
my frustration is less about sv in specific and more that it feels like so many AAA AND indies have locked themselves into open world and made their stories, worlds and gameplay worse as a result. open would should be niche and rare because most will never be able to make good ones
and like, i agree with the idea that pokemon would be good for open world. but in practice? ignoring all the above issues, we havent even reach good plot and gamefreak has been struggling with linear exploration, which is MUCH more approachable. this franchise should not be jumping to something as demanding as open world when it cannot even get a single benefit from it! its not like paldea is particularly replayable over other pokemon games, and id argue its probably less as youre encouraged to work on your save file with new raids and events etc. the exploration isnt memorable, any atmosphere you have gets destroyed by the graphics (listen idc about graphics but we need to be real here. open worlds are as much about doing things as it is seeing things and if your world is ugly, youre not getting people to explore it lol), its all just the same formula of catching every mon in the area, battling the trainers and fighting the boss/gym/whatever.
my frustration is less about sv in specific and more that it feels like so many AAA AND indies have locked themselves into open world and made their stories, worlds and gameplay worse as a result. open would should be niche and rare because most will never be able to make good ones
Lol this took so long to type out and I lost a chunk of my response at one point. Oops.
Also, hot take, but Zelda lore is kind of unnecessary beyond the usual Link/Zelda/Ganon relation (and even that has been discarded in a few games) and trying to force a timeline beyond specific games that are clearly sequels is one of the fandom's greatest sins.
(I know you meant divine beasts lol)
Oh, and since I almost forgot, TotK did rather notably increase the number of enemy types, something that was definitely missing from BotW.
Also wanted to bring this up but I think SV's probably too-vast map would be a little less frustrating if the actual map function in-game wasn't completely terrible with next to no automatic labeling (with no clear divisions between regions) and only one very flimsy labelling option.
Since Ironmage and I both brought it up, the way Metroidvanias do progression is probably better for something like Pokémon than a true open world. But you've got to build a world/region around that, and make decisions on how you want to wall certain areas off behind progression. Taking a couple of different examples, Hollow Knight tends to have multiple ways to get to almost any area in the game, leading to a fairly flexible number of ways one can obtain important items. On the other hand, Metroid Dread actually kind of railroads you in (with some opportunities for sequence breaks) but makes you feel like you've got freedom to roam around the map. That's closer to what Pokémon has done in the past, and again, it's not strictly bad (Pokémon needs to work on its overly-conspicuous roadblocks, though).
I think this take is probably uncommon, but I actually don't like the idea of the whole game scaling to the player's progression in an open-world Pokémon game. It breaks immersion. Let Gym Leaders/other in-universe structured groups scale, maybe, but not the entire wild Pokémon population. This doesn't apply to all games (I think the way BotW/TotK does it is decent enough), but if, say, Gen 10 does have the entire world scale to progression (assuming it's open world again), I think I would find that a lot more annoying than having a rigid storyline.
What I like conceptually about open-world games/a lot of metroidvanias is that everyone's experience will be a little different. The in-game story may suffer (not saying it's a given, but more likely), but the individual story of playing the game is different, and you'll have your own little anecdotes to share. Pokémon does have some of that baked into its formula (which creatures you choose to raise), so, you know what, I will concede that it's probably not the end-all for the "best" game possible.
I gotta say, though, I've personally set my bar for stories from Game Freak internally low, so I don't really care what story they churn out. I'm just along for the ride.
I'll agree with this idea (that it becomes increasingly hard to flesh out a game the bigger and more open you make it) at its basic level, but I have to disagree with various points you bring up here.
You're not the only person I've seen complain about BotW/TotK for how they mess up the Zelda formula, but I think the main other person I've seen do it is more miffed by how it messes with item conventions (for puzzle solving, durability being annoying, dungeons, etc.)
Yeah, TotK is, in a lot of ways, a massive tech-demo flex, and I don't entirely jive with the technology's abilities in it, either (I think BotW's runes were more interesting from a basic puzzle-solving perspective), but a lot of bigger challenges in the game are based on them.
Also, hot take, but Zelda lore is kind of unnecessary beyond the usual Link/Zelda/Ganon relation (and even that has been discarded in a few games) and trying to force a timeline beyond specific games that are clearly sequels is one of the fandom's greatest sins.
I never understood the vitriol toward shrines/divine beasts/whatever as "weaker puzzles" because they encourage you to find your own solution with the tools you have been given. You're free to bring other things in that can help, but you don't need to and aren't forced to. Sometimes the puzzle is outside of the shrine, too, though I guess that isn't that different from older sidequests. Really, the only issue I see here is how the puzzles aren't built around a specific dungeon item and forcing you to learn how to use it, but those remaining interesting throughout a game depend on said items being versatile and not "this solves this problem and ONLY this problem." Also:
(I know you meant divine beasts lol)
Mostly fair points here; I watch a lot of a very good OoT player and, aside from the glitches, there are a lot of sword options in that 25 year-old game, and BotW/TotK really haven't added that many more (and even removed a few, I think). The whole "huge overworld with a bunch of mini-challenges" is something that Super Mario Odyssey dabbles in too with its Moons, and I watched a video essay about that game, critiquing how the huge number of Moons (and quick timing of getting one to another) diminishes the satisfaction from getting one; I think that's what you're feeling, and I think it's a reasonable thing to critique.
Oh, and since I almost forgot, TotK did rather notably increase the number of enemy types, something that was definitely missing from BotW.
I haven't played any of the Dark Souls games (I've started Bloodborne but haven't gotten very far), so I'm not speaking from personal experience, but it's my understanding that none of these games are particularly... direct with their stories. I can't say how different Elden Ring's game progression is from Dark Souls or other FromSoft games, but I didn't think it did anything super different with how its narrative was presented.
I think Game Freak should, and could, have the resources available to them if they wanted to use them, given how lucrative the franchise is. Time, though? Yeah, that's a problem, and one that I've seen brought up a lot since SV released. A lot of fans are desperate for Game Freak to get more time to develop a generation, myself included. I choose to believe that the complete lack of interiors would have been one of the first things fixed if they had more development time, but that might be copium.
That's... all Pokémon has ever really had when it comes to its routes, as far as return value is concerned. If you ask me, though, part of the problem is that it's much easier to hide secrets worth searching for in a smaller, 2D game world than it is in a full 3D world with a wide camera angle (SV's poor draw distance aside). They could have added more places worth climbing or surfing to that you could see early on, but they chose not to, and that's a loss.
I haven't played the DLC yet, but I can respect a good, streamlined story. I think you are downplaying the effort Game Freak does put in to the areas they choose to apply themselves to (mostly Gym Leaders/teachers in SV). It's bad that the rest of the world is essentially a ghost town, but they do try to make their named and "important" NPCs have definite personalities and goals. This was true in SwSh as well, where each pairing of possible trainers had a specific interaction in a postgame tournament.
Also wanted to bring this up but I think SV's probably too-vast map would be a little less frustrating if the actual map function in-game wasn't completely terrible with next to no automatic labeling (with no clear divisions between regions) and only one very flimsy labelling option.
Since Ironmage and I both brought it up, the way Metroidvanias do progression is probably better for something like Pokémon than a true open world. But you've got to build a world/region around that, and make decisions on how you want to wall certain areas off behind progression. Taking a couple of different examples, Hollow Knight tends to have multiple ways to get to almost any area in the game, leading to a fairly flexible number of ways one can obtain important items. On the other hand, Metroid Dread actually kind of railroads you in (with some opportunities for sequence breaks) but makes you feel like you've got freedom to roam around the map. That's closer to what Pokémon has done in the past, and again, it's not strictly bad (Pokémon needs to work on its overly-conspicuous roadblocks, though).
I think this take is probably uncommon, but I actually don't like the idea of the whole game scaling to the player's progression in an open-world Pokémon game. It breaks immersion. Let Gym Leaders/other in-universe structured groups scale, maybe, but not the entire wild Pokémon population. This doesn't apply to all games (I think the way BotW/TotK does it is decent enough), but if, say, Gen 10 does have the entire world scale to progression (assuming it's open world again), I think I would find that a lot more annoying than having a rigid storyline.
What I like conceptually about open-world games/a lot of metroidvanias is that everyone's experience will be a little different. The in-game story may suffer (not saying it's a given, but more likely), but the individual story of playing the game is different, and you'll have your own little anecdotes to share. Pokémon does have some of that baked into its formula (which creatures you choose to raise), so, you know what, I will concede that it's probably not the end-all for the "best" game possible.
And... you know what, I agree with basically all of this. I like this conclusion. It's far better for a game/series to refine what it wants to do and make it actually fun and functional instead of following the most recent trend and biting off more than they can chew. I'm not a big graphics guy but agree that, even ignoring performance, SV look really bad (well, the overworld does; the Pokémon themselves look really good IMO).
I gotta say, though, I've personally set my bar for stories from Game Freak internally low, so I don't really care what story they churn out. I'm just along for the ride.
While the topic is still on open world games I want to add that the character movement in those sorts of games (at least the few that I've played) often feels so bad and slow at times that it makes the already somewhat uninteresting areas even more of a slog to go through. Apologies in advance for the incoherent rambling.
Like how in botw/totk Link walks so slowly and running barely feels like an improvement over his movement speed (not to mention how quickly stamina runs out in the early/mid game) that it just makes traversing the massive world feel like such a slog at times. Or how climbing and swimming are slow unless you have a full set of armor with the buffs to those methods of traversal which makes having to climb or swim feel like the last thing you ever want to do. Wouldn't be so bad if the world wasn't massive and all the other stuff mentioned above about how it can feel so empty at times wasn't present but alas.
SV is better in this regard since you get the bike dragon so early on it gives you a decently fast way to get around on land but whenever you're off them traversal is slow so in comparison which makes your "basic" movement feel so much worse to play with. Then there's the upgrades to your bike dragon which are fine but once you've collected all of them it just exacerbates the difference in how movement feels when you're on and off your bike, even then when you're on the bike sometimes getting around can feel a bit... slippery? for lack of a better word
In comparison the movement in Xenoblade X feels so good and fun from the start since despite the massive world you can run fast without stamina limitations and jump high as hell which makes traversal across the wide open areas actually fun to do. Gaining access to Skells after chapter 6 and the flight module after chapter 9 certainly improve your movement options and increase the amount of areas you can access (especially with the flight module) but it doesn't detract from your base movement in comparison to the bike dragons from SV which make your basic off the bike movement feel completely pointless outside of building where you literally cannot ride them.
If pokemon is going to continue down the open world style path of games (it shouldn't imo but it probably will) then I'd at least hope that getting around is a bit more fun to do and not as reliant on you getting multiple upgrades over the course of the game to reach the point where it becomes fun (at which point you've already explored most of what there is to explore).
Like how in botw/totk Link walks so slowly and running barely feels like an improvement over his movement speed (not to mention how quickly stamina runs out in the early/mid game) that it just makes traversing the massive world feel like such a slog at times. Or how climbing and swimming are slow unless you have a full set of armor with the buffs to those methods of traversal which makes having to climb or swim feel like the last thing you ever want to do. Wouldn't be so bad if the world wasn't massive and all the other stuff mentioned above about how it can feel so empty at times wasn't present but alas.
SV is better in this regard since you get the bike dragon so early on it gives you a decently fast way to get around on land but whenever you're off them traversal is slow so in comparison which makes your "basic" movement feel so much worse to play with. Then there's the upgrades to your bike dragon which are fine but once you've collected all of them it just exacerbates the difference in how movement feels when you're on and off your bike, even then when you're on the bike sometimes getting around can feel a bit... slippery? for lack of a better word
In comparison the movement in Xenoblade X feels so good and fun from the start since despite the massive world you can run fast without stamina limitations and jump high as hell which makes traversal across the wide open areas actually fun to do. Gaining access to Skells after chapter 6 and the flight module after chapter 9 certainly improve your movement options and increase the amount of areas you can access (especially with the flight module) but it doesn't detract from your base movement in comparison to the bike dragons from SV which make your basic off the bike movement feel completely pointless outside of building where you literally cannot ride them.
If pokemon is going to continue down the open world style path of games (it shouldn't imo but it probably will) then I'd at least hope that getting around is a bit more fun to do and not as reliant on you getting multiple upgrades over the course of the game to reach the point where it becomes fun (at which point you've already explored most of what there is to explore).
help me
not about your take here but I love most of the mons on your signature alot, cryogonal, klinklang, noibat, shedinja are all very high up my favourites list (assuming that is your favourites list)
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)
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.
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.