Unpopular opinions

[Bakugames]

As for friction: I think it's not only fine but good that HMs take up moveslots, because it introduces opportunity cost. I need to use this move to progress - do I give it to a team member in place of a stronger 4th move, or do I hand it off to a weaker 'mon I've caught and have them take up a team slot? Friction isn't necessarily a bad thing - I think these kinds of restrictions can be interesting and lead to some neat player expression if handled properly. There is no such decision making to be had with Ride 'mons. The best form of it are the Raidons in SV, just because they're seamlessly implemented into the flow of the game and because the Raidons are distinctly your 'mon, but I just don't think it's as interesting.

I think this is a really good point too. While qol additions are usually good, there is something to be said about making the player be a bit uncomfortable/suboptimal in their gameplay. I always bring up monster hunter stories for this, but I actually enjoyed the question of "if i bring my best monsties around, i wont have monsties with skills like jump/break rocks/climb to explore some areas, but the monsties that have those skills are not my best and very underleveled, what should i prioritize right now?". Its why i wish theyd add a similar system to the games lol.

I think one of the reasons they removed hms is that i think retooling them is a lot harder than you'd think for modern pokemon. for example, you can just remember any move a pokemon has learned in sv. if hms were forgettable, then all youd have to do is use the hm and then replace it with the move you had before, which pretty much removes any friction that hms had and just turns them into a 30 seconds annoyance. making them stronger helps, but also can end up with the side effect of giving people even stronger tools early game, in games that already have five million ways to make your experience easier. i do think they truly needed to be replaced, but with a system that kept its goal to make the player engage with the pokemon and field instead of ignore it completely

 

[ant4456]

On this note tho from what little I’ve gleaned from skimming Wolfey videos, evasion spam and OHKO moves are becoming popular in VGC which seems like a really bad thing, and I got mad about it last night in some sort of connection with how GameFreak doesn’t let old gen Pokemon keep their moves when transferred up.

where

like if you look at the top teams of tournaments you don't see this at all

 

[Yung Dramps]

Said this before and will say it again: I'm sure that one day, eventually they'll ditch premade sets of ridemons entirely and just have HM-like functions mapped on a Pokemon-by-Pokemon basis. So, for example, you can just freely fly around on a winged Pokemon of your choice once you achieve a certain progress benchmark, or move around Strength boulders with a designated "strong" Pokemon like Ursaring or Conkeldurr

There's seriously no way this isn't the long-term goal and they might've even gotten around to it by now if their scheduling weren't so screwed up.

 

[Sonikku A]

Honestly, make it so field moves are a category for learned moves or specific mons. That way you're not stuck with a crappy slave, but then you still need to vary team building

Like baby mons and some preevos would be barred access from it, so it'd encourage evolving stuff too

Edit: Ah, ninja'd!

 

[Ironmage]

I could see broadening to more moves within a category (e.g., any slashing move can function as Cut), but I'm not currently a fan of having the standard HM suite mapped onto mons directly. Maybe some more diverse obstacles could help (needing to hack a door? letting you burn down as well as cut down trees?), but it currently comes off as being completely free if you happen to like Swampert or something, but still needing to run a full slave if you much prefer the Magnemites and Litwicks of the series.

 

[Basedwell]

where

like if you look at the top teams of tournaments you don't see this at all

Sheer cold/snow cloak articuno won a tournament, and fissure ting-lu was a thing at one point I think. I may have overestimated the popularity of Articuno because I saw a lot of ppl made videos on the concept.

And as for a comment I made in the Pokemon Presents thread, there was a time where in a big tournament everyone was using Urshifu/Tornadus/Flutter Mane/Chien Pao/Amoongus/Iron Hands or something similar, and there were like 8 Pokemon represented in the top ten finishers of a prominent tournament. I would like to see more diversity in teams, nothing too crazy but like maybe 4-5 good team archetypes with a few fringe strats

Maybe I’m just uneducated but I’d think you could have something like this without the games turning into some Rock/Paper/Scissors in terms of matchups, and I’m also not saying every Pokemon should be relevant.

 

[ant4456]

Sheer cold/snow cloak articuno won a tournament, and fissure ting-lu was a thing at one point I think. I may have overestimated the popularity of Articuno because I saw a lot of ppl made videos on the concept.

And as for a comment I made in the Pokemon Presents thread, there was a time where in a big tournament everyone was using Urshifu/Tornadus/Flutter Mane/Chien Pao/Amoongus/Iron Hands or something similar, and there were like 8 Pokemon represented in the top ten finishers of a prominent tournament. I would like to see more diversity in teams, nothing too crazy but like maybe 4-5 good team archetypes with a few fringe strats

Maybe I’m just uneducated but I’d think you could have something like this without the games turning into some Rock/Paper/Scissors in terms of matchups, and I’m also not saying every Pokemon should be relevant.

the articuno team was good even if it got 0 RNG procs and it's been gone ever since

and fissure ting lu isn't a thing anymore

vgc is much less about your team of 6 and much more about what mons you bring to each match, making every bo3 set very different and much more focused on the players outplaying each other than just their matchup or whatever

current season

and according to the usage stats, there are 11 more common moves than Fissure on ting lu (it's literally not even listed, it's in "Other")

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Having generational gimmicks tied to held items helps to mitigate poor item balance (by forcing powerful mons off the standard for their role) and should have continued being the case post-3ds.

I like the flexibility of not having to decide beforehand what mon will get to use the big gimmick.
With that said, there's a difference between, say, Terastalization and Dynamax.


As for the HM topic... It ain't rocket science. The big problem with HMs was that they sucked as moves.

Imagine willingly teaching this to one of your mons after Gym 8

And this is AFTER it got buffed.

And that's in a game with Surf and Waterfall. You may be willing to burn a moveslot on Waterfall just to not have to get something else just for it. Whirlpool as well? That's 3/4 moveslots on a single mon, it's unreasonable to try and use it.

 

[Bakugames]

I don't think its just them being good moves, its also about how theyre often the same types: normal or water. normal can be a decent ish coverage but even then its not the best, and having 3 water moves is really bad because well.. this isnt gen 1 anymore, often the only pokemon that learn it are the shitmon rodent or a water type lol

 

[ant4456]

One thing I wish was brought up more in the HM conversation is that around the time when Game Freak started winding them down, they were consistently (tbf XY exception imo) making games where HMs were not actually used as any more than a story progression block.

As in, in a Metroidvania, you see locks and do other things. You get the new power, then you go back and check that lock. In a game like Black and White, it's more of "Here is Cut HM. Now you open the Cut Tree right there to do the next cutscene. Now Cut barely matters for the rest of the game."

Most HMs in the game generally just exist for what is going to happen directly after, where Game Freak also started becoming more invested in non-HM checks to routes starting in Gen 4 and it only got worse over time. So they didn't really have much of a need for HMs.

One more thing I'll add is that SV IMO has one of the best implementations. For some reason SV has better movement than like 99% of RPGs and the HM equivalents make that even better. Run being an actual Run that feels good while also letting you do more stuff (with platforming and that one hill) feels like the next best thing, and the other half of Metroidvania that makes it more worthwhile than just axing it imo- making it feel better to play when you have them, which HMs used to not really do.

 

[Lontra Assassina]

At this point the "Pokémon games always have bad graphics" spiel feels performative. It's always the same arguments without any thought put into them, no examination of why someone feels that way, almost like the person feels expected to say that. I just read a whole article on Eurogamer about this debacle and they couldn't articulate why they felt Z-A looked bad except for bad roof textures (?) and "smooth looking humans" while making an appeal to nostalgia with the pixel art games. It would feel much more intellectually honest to admit you're just not a fan of an artstyle.

 

[Bakugames]

the graphics themselves are fine, i think the game looks ugly because its washed out and grey with a pretty meh pallete. theres no graphic quality improvement that can save bad coloring

 

[pika pal]

My take on HMs is that their removal in Gen 7 was a massive overreaction on Game Freak's part to criticism that could have easily been resolved just by making their requirements less harsh. It honestly baffles me that they immediately nixed them altogether after years of sticking with the same old rigid system rather than try to compromise on how they work even once.

Like Bakugames said, HMs were at their best in Gen 1. Each move had clear niches and were designed around specific thresholds in the game. The lack of HM removal was a problem since it was easy to saddle a carry like your starter with a crappy move for eternity, but other than that they were implemented perfectly well. Yet after that, besides adding an HM remover in Gen 3 (and I guess Stadium 2), HMs stayed rigidly fixed in place, while the number of HMs kept ballooning, culminating in dumb bullshit like Defog and Rock Climb in Gen 4. Even in Gen 5 and 6, where the reliance on HMs was heavily decreased (except Kalos Victory Road requiring Strength at the very last minute - that was a nasty surprise back in 2013), they never altered the moves themselves or alleviated the strict rules of "this move must take a move slot and you cannot forget it without going out of your way to do so". Then Gen 7 rolled around, and they were gone with no fanfare.

HMs implement two things that I regard as important: immersion, and friction. Poke Ride and other similar mechanics offer neither, because you're essentially handed the keys to someone else's Pokemon - one that appears after nowhere and vanishes as soon as the job is done. The actual progression is similar enough to HMs, but it makes all the difference that it's not your 'mon doing it. As for friction: I think it's not only fine but good that HMs take up moveslots, because it introduces opportunity cost. I need to use this move to progress - do I give it to a team member in place of a stronger 4th move, or do I hand it off to a weaker 'mon I've caught and have them take up a team slot? Friction isn't necessarily a bad thing - I think these kinds of restrictions can be interesting and lead to some neat player expression if handled properly. There is no such decision making to be had with Ride 'mons. The best form of it are the Raidons in SV, just because they're seamlessly implemented into the flow of the game and because the Raidons are distinctly your 'mon, but I just don't think it's as interesting.

So the problem the friction argument runs into for me is that it continues a trend I've felt since branching out from Pokemon into other RPG's when I was a Teenager: Pokemon teaches bad habits if you play it as an RPG or try to transplant habits from one to the other.

The most famous example of this is how most kids play the game: all attack moves, use every mon as a beater, probably just power leveling a few that hit hard already like their starter. Beaters win faster, so you're inclined to use them more immediately, they get more EXP, and it becomes a feedback loop. Meanwhile if you try to play an RPG like Dragon Quest, certain Final Fantasy entries, or something from Atlus in this manner (Persona or SMT), you're not going to get very far without using buffs and status effects to deal with asymmetrical stat systems that Pokemon lacks by nature. If you want proof, look at Tera Raids: players who bring full Support Pokemon (some of which can't inflict damage themselves) contribute significantly more than random players jumping in with their Level 100 Main story legendary or a fresh caught Mightiest Mark Pokemon when the battle has 4 much weaker targets up against a much stronger Tower.

HMs work in a similar manner, trying to have a give-and-take by tying your ability to progress to a handicap in battle for the areas where the field moves are required. The problem here becomes that kneecapping your Pokemon or having to constantly rotate the HM carriers in and out of your team isn't strategic so much as an inconvenience, which just led to running HM mules (find me a Sinnoh playthrough that doesn't run Bibarel and wouldn't be smoother if it did) and doubling down on the above mentioned "small team Unga EXP" loop to make up for being down a slot. The HMs are a failed system in that as designed they're not a crossroads for decision making, the optimal strategy is always just to compartmentalize and completely ignore the resources the system takes away from you because the moves are such garbage and so stuck to the user that you're just flat out making them worse than designed outside of Surf and some Strength/Waterfall users (and in that case it's mostly down to Water being a horribly balanced and overly abundant type which minimizes the "I'm not running one of these" scenario).

I have a particular comparison to make on this point as well: Final Fantasy 3 (original numbering, the NES game) was groundbreaking for many aspects such as the Job system that in several ways feels like what Pokemon was trying to emulate with Kanto's original design ethos: a spread of character types to build a team of multiple units from that you could rotate or replace on the fly (in some cases being strict upgrades over prior versions) at the expense of having to do additional grinding/leveling up to maintain more options for build flexibility. One of FF3's more infamous aspects is several sections in which you're made to utilize particular classes to continue (dungeons requiring the Physical-nerfing Mini status, casting Toad to enter certain areas, Garuda essentially saying "Dragoons or GTFO," the Dark Cave enemies that just multiply without a Mystic/Dark Knight weapon specifically) because it actively punishes you for not playing with the pieces the game wants you to use, and in several cases does not permit you to attempt unless you're going the one specific method they tell you to use (i.e. Mages for the Mini Dungeon). It even manages to encompass both HM situations because the Mini dungeons require being stuck playing it, Dark Cave has alternatives that are possible but significantly more tedious, and the Toad gates can also just be done by switching, casting Toad to go through, and then switching back (albeit with some trash grinding to get the Points to swap Jobs).

Ironically, despite Gen 1 being touted as the best usage of the mechanic overall (non-deletion aside), it's also the entry that scrapped what I think would have been the best compromise: using tools in your limited inventory vs an HM on your more flexible Pokemon slots. The tradeoff there instead is two different inconveniences rather than an inconvenience vs a straight nerf: do I carry an HM user, or give up a bag slot that I could use for TMs/Repels/Pokeballs during this dungeon visit? Mystery Dungeon had a similar approach where you could either bring a teammate with the move, or carry the HM and risk losing it to a failed run or trap in the Dungeon.

 

[Esserise]

I get where people are coming from when they say Arceus and (especially) SV look bad, but honestly Z-A looks perfectly fine to me? Like it’s not a visual wonder or anything, and I’m not going to contend with anyone who thinks it could be improved, but I just fundamentally don’t look at the trailer or the screenshots and think “this is ugly.” It’s decent. Nothing special, but fine.

And I get that there’s a larger, long-standing discussion about how Pokémon games could achieve so much more in the graphical space, considering how much money the games make, and sure, I think that’s a fine discussion to have (or at least it would be, were this fandom not so badly poisoned), but just because I don’t think Z-A looks as good as it theoretically could doesn’t mean I think it looks distinctly “ugly.” I’ve seen some truly ugly-looking games.

 

[Mad Ram]

Really the big thing for improving the graphics is just time. We've seen before these games don't really have that long a development cycle, two-three years depending on how you define it versus five years or so from AAA titles. By my not-well-educated guess, Gamefreak has been using the same production timelines that worked alright in the DS and 3DS years but aren't adequate when trying to make bigger games for a mainline console.

At this point the "Pokémon games always have bad graphics" spiel feels performative. It's always the same arguments without any thought put into them, no examination of why someone feels that way, almost like the person feels expected to say that. I just read a whole article on Eurogamer about this debacle and they couldn't articulate why they felt Z-A looked bad except for bad roof textures (?) and "smooth looking humans" while making an appeal to nostalgia with the pixel art games. It would feel much more intellectually honest to admit you're just not a fan of an artstyle.

Here's the thing, they could definitely list examples of it. I've complained a bit about how some of the generic buildings looked and how bad the windows and balcony textures look, and you have other people who can make educated complaints and critiques while illustrating examples and don't devolve into a barely more insightful form of RETVRN memes. Frankly, I think part of this is just how bad gamer culture is at criticism, i.e. understanding of the medium on an artistic and frankly business standpoint, as a whole as well as how gaming journalism is still not good either and really lacking the professionalism or insight of other media journalism despite existing for 30+ years already.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

At this point the "Pokémon games always have bad graphics" spiel feels performative. It's always the same arguments without any thought put into them, no examination of why someone feels that way, almost like the person feels expected to say that. I just read a whole article on Eurogamer about this debacle and they couldn't articulate why they felt Z-A looked bad except for bad roof textures (?) and "smooth looking humans" while making an appeal to nostalgia with the pixel art games. It would feel much more intellectually honest to admit you're just not a fan of an artstyle.

You could make a point about texture quality, but come on. Smooth humans? That's a smooth-brained criticism. Imagine anime-esque humans with PS5 skin textures. Wtf do they want, Jump Force?
Yeah, this is rage-baiting at its finest.

how gaming journalism is still not good either and really lacking the professionalism or insight of other media journalism despite existing for 30+ years already.

Gaming journalism is somehow even worse than sports journalism and has been for a long time. The saying that "You can't spell ignorance without IGN" has been around for at least 15 years now, maybe even two decades. And we all know there are many reasons for that.

It's also nigh-impossible to be taken seriously, as most of it is seen as bought-out and extremely shallow.

Same deal as reviews while I'm at it.

 

[Mad Ram]

Gaming journalism is somehow even worse than sports journalism and has been for a long time. The saying that "You can't spell ignorance without IGN" has been around for at least 15 years now, maybe even two decades. And we all know there are many reasons for that.

It's also nigh-impossible to be taken seriously, as most of it is seen as bought-out and extremely shallow.

Same deal as reviews while I'm at it.

Eh, I consider game reviews as another part of game journalism, and as such subject to the exact same problem. Granted, influencer reviewers/critics tend to be just as bad, and user reviews... lol, just lol, so not like we have many other options.

It'd be nice if we had some actual journalism regarding things like this, digging into details from the Teraleak about game development cycles, sources either who worked on Pokémon games before or generally knowledgeable people in the industry for more detailed breakdowns on how these things work and their own takes, or things that generally require more journalistic skill than knowing what keywords work well on whatever hellsite people want it trending on. A shame that there's, from what I know, only one good gaming journalist out there, but then again he's also working for Bloomberg, something read by people involved in business who have a very keen interest in getting things right, and even he has some issues now and then with social media culture wars.

 

[CynicalGiant]

I think these two opinions (more so habits of mine) are fairly unpopular but unsure of just how unpopular or unusual they are

1) whenever I'm playing a particular gen I have only ever used pokemon of that gen. even if an old favorite appears and is available I have never used it unless it got a specifically new evolution or form in that gen. I used Alolan Sandslash and Alolan Golem in gen 7 but I wouldn't have if they were just regular Golem or Sandslash (even tho I like both)

If I'm playing a particular gen I'm playing it to play that gen, I don't care about the old pokemon in that instance. Gen 5's no old pokemon gimmick was cool, felt like they were catering to me specifically lmao.

2) I don't think I've ever caught a pokemon without the intention of using it. There's an entire gameplay loop I've never interacted with that I presume is the intended way of playing, of constantly catching new pokemon and swapping them in and out as they get weaker or less useful. I almost didn't get thru Legends Arceus originally because of how much I don't like actually catching pokemon I'm not going to battle with, as strange as that is to say.

Obviously the level curves in a lot of games get very strange if your team size is essentially on par with the rivals, like one new pokemon per gym until 6, sometimes like 3+ gyms without a single new member depending on the game or what specific team member I wanted.

_____

I agree with the HM opinions that it was interesting and compelling game design in Gen 1 but it was getting rather tedious. I also honestly had more fun with the bizarre roadblocks they introduced thruout the gens that effectively functioned as an HM block without being one. The one that comes to mind is the "We're standing here for no reason, and one day we'll be gone for no reason" gag from Unova.

 

[Sonikku A]

the graphics themselves are fine, i think the game looks ugly because its washed out and grey with a pretty meh pallete. theres no graphic quality improvement that can save bad coloring

SV's terrain textures were disgustingly saturated, yet object lighting was horrendously dim with overly blue ambient lighting not impacted by area. Texture filtering and vertex paint methods were also disgustingly outdated. The mon models despite attempts of trying to not be flat for textures were hit miss. Fur textures still feel like painted on plastic figures for the most part, though I like Magnemite being metallic for the first time since Stadium-PBR

Meanwhile, SZA pros;
-Mon/object colors aren't dim
-Building designs are generally better
-Char design for player is better, and I like the inverse for rival
-Per eye tracking. The "Gyarados ️‍?" meme is funny

However

-The lack of normal maps for terrain is extremely noticeable. A lot of buildings look cheaply painted on
-Texture res for terrain is still bad, and suffers similar outdated vertex paint issues
-Chars have gross rimlighting applied, reminds me of Shadow x Gens. Actually this is an issue I notice in """cartoony""" games after the 2010s, like why do it!? It makes the char stand out artificially in dark areas, and look overexposed when seen close up in bright areas. Smash ult has the same issue, but it makes everyone look greyer, I can't-
-The hat is shit for players. Also feel the shoes for the girl player could be swapped for something better, though I'm nitpicking at this point

I do agree this graphically looks like a *Wii U game* overall. It's incredibly budget upon further inspection. Artstyle is still better than SV, but eh

Actually something that's been bugging me in the past few years, why are "stylistic" games getting worse with lighting? Or just awkwardly be rigidly stock for lighting like...

I already complained about SwSh/SV tweaking face normals to *look* flat, but all it does is make it look inconsistent with other parts of the body, and be too harsh outside front -> 3/4 angles. Like embrace light contrast, c'mon. It seems like devs are replicating post 2010 anime industry shading optimizations just for ease without prior awareness of this. For 3D this ironically ends up being harder to do (well it's 1 extra step in model making, but still)

I have a lotta nitpicks, but SZA is still better than SV visually

 

[Lontra Assassina]

-Chars have gross rimlighting applied, reminds me of Shadow x Gens. Actually this is an issue I notice in """cartoony""" games after the 2010s, like why do it!? It makes the char stand out artificially in dark areas, and look overexposed when seen close up in bright areas. Smash ult has the same issue, but it makes everyone look greyer, I can't-

Speaking from the perspective of a visual artist, rim lighting is a handy way to stylized directional lighting without worrying too much about the different planes of the object. You see it a lot with anime-style characters, as they tend to use one or two tone shading at most.

One thing I miss from PLA having mostly flat-colored models is that it allowed for very dramactic lighting, as the colors and shadows shifted entirely depending on the time of day. in PLZA, the difference is much more subtle.

 

[CynicalGiant]

I think it would be nice if the Pokemon games looked better graphically but it isn't something I require to enjoy an RPG. I really liked Metaphor: Refantazio and that game had several hideous textures and environments.


Granted, not an artist, but I think they should lean more into a particular aesthetic art style to hide a lot of the graphical problems. I think Legend of Zelda: Windwaker is the example I always think of most from Non-pokemon, and the pokemon example I think of a lot is Let's Go. (I don't like the chibi people but the environments and pokemon look pretty nice)

 

[Sonikku A]

Speaking from the perspective of a visual artist, rim lighting is a handy way to stylized directional lighting without worrying too much about the different planes of the object. You see it a lot with anime-style characters, as they tend to use one or two tone shading at most.

I'm aware, but it's extremely overdone, and exacerbates how mediocre the actual lighting is for darker areas, same for lack of dynamic point lights the rest. LZA already isn't a cel shaded game, the actual base lighting isn't stylized for the most part. It reminds me how badly the industry did bloomy brown/green contrast the 360 Gen just cuz "it was the norm"

Back to that PLA example, it's true it has better contrast for shading, but I find the shader kinda piss. It's just grey there for shaded areas with no ambient color applied, and is harshly 2 tones when a more detailed mon like Tangrowth should probably be 3. This ignores how ugly and sparse the rest of the terrain is

Like lemme tweak...

Made it more orange for base tone, with a hacky draw over of a mid tone, and bluer ambient shading. Even tweaked grass to be more orange to reflect the skybox

Also I'll ignore the trees having really bad normals

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Regional Forms and Convergent Species (Regional Fakes) should be treated like Wiglett/Diglett in SV.

Both are available in the same game, but in different biomes.

I could make a case for it being more plausible for a bunch of Vulpix to move within the same region and eventually become Alolan Vulpix, and how the Hisuian starters technically evolve and adapt during the events of PLA, but I have a much simpler reason.

It'd be neat.