I would say those two are not mutually exclusive. From what I can tell, most people tend to be of the opinion that "Pokémon is too easy!", but something I've known for a while and it becomes more apparent every time I replay something gen1-related is, to paraphrase the late John Bain, "Pokémon is babby's first RPG," and I am perfectly fine with that. I welcome it, even, because now that I'm older and know how to actually RPG, I'm not finding almost any of the "grind" that people say are in Pokémon games.


This is actually something I am incredibly fond of, especially with Magikarp-styled pokemon now that I'm older and more into game design.


I have the opposite problem: no typing system in any game has ever made sense to me the way Pokémon's does. In fact, I flat-out CANNOT understand the Final Fantasy method of type matchups, and there's typically only around six!


Yes? Why is there any confusion over this point?


The short answer: interesting choices on the part of the player.

The long answer: (I assume that) the original Gameboy just didn't have the memory space to hold any additional move information at one time (for active pokemon, not, like the game-wide move pool), and because Pokémon / Game Freak has done so little innovation every generation that each Pokémon game is less distinguishable from each other than Marios or Zeldas are, the norms established with that first generation hasn't been touched or improved upon.


The whole HM situation is really interesting, IMO. It wasn't until very recently that the thought of not carrying around what I thought were the "essential" HMs even entered my mind, and now that I'm not beholden to the concept of "HM slaves" I've realized just how different and interesting they can make a [casual, non-completionist] run.

Because, like, in-game, most HMs are actually pretty good: Fly, Surf, Strength, and Rock Smash are all fairly good in combat; and Cut is usually placed early enough in-game that, for the time that it is required instead of optional, it's got okay-ish power in comparison to what you have; the other water-typed HMs are a mixed bag largely because of also needing Surf to be used on the overworld and generally only available to water-type pokemon, though several of them happen to be decent water-type moves on their own. So, like, I wouldn't say most pokemon are "ruined" for taking an HM or maybe even two (though there were problems with which HMs were necessary to progress in some of the games).


No? It's entirely possible I missed or have forgotten some in-game dialogue that gave you that impression, but I have never seen anything that said that. If anything, it hurts their stat growth in the very short-term.


That's something I've seen a lot of hardcore Pokémon fans seem to say, and mostly it's not something that's just ever been on my radar? Though I do still love how much of an actual rival Gary (or, well, he's not technically Gary in the games, but you know) is in gen 1 and all its remakes. He's always already beaten the gyms seemingly just before you get there, acts as a surprise gatekeeper in many places and then shows up as the bonus surprise FIFTH member of the ELITE FOUR END-GAME BOSS RUSH.


"Never shutting up" seems to be a quirk of the generations that grew after I wandered away from the series. I think there may have been some of that in Black/White, but I only ever played through that once and didn't stick with it like I did with all the previous generations.


I've been entrenched in the hidden numbers of Pokémon for long enough that the stat raising/lowering moves make a thousand times more sense to me than in other RPGs.

But regardless, it sounds like you're railing more on the transparency issue than anything else, which, I mean, fair enough. A lot of the game is dictated by... not quite what I would call "hidden mechanics" so much as mechanics that are not explained well in-game (particularly the typing system which the game hinges on the most). It's one thing I never realized existed but now absolutely adore about the gen1 GBA remakes: they had an in-game help menu that you could access to explain what the different stats actually did and even how the types affected one another.


Quoting this separately because the further away I get from competitive pokemon the more I actually love the IV/EV system? The IV system introduces mostly-small variances from pokemon to pokemon that adds just a little bit of individuality between copies, especially in the days before you could have, like, special coat patterns (like Spinda, or the later male/female differences) or even different colors (prior to shinies and then the shinys-are-rare convention). EVs are (IMO) a great way both to implement a meaningful distinction between a trained and untrained pokemon, as well as introduce an interesting choice (assuming all you know is that an untrained pokemon of the same level isn't as strong as a trained one) of whether to go for the "shortcut" of catching a higher-level wild pokemon or training up a weaker one.

That said, do I think they're perfect the way they are? No, particularly not now that so many even casual players of Pokémon put so much emphasis on them and they're becoming more transparent even in the officially licensed games (pretty much every fangame of note has increased the transparency of IVs/EVs). To circle back around to my earlier comment about innovation, there's also just so much more they could do now that they've got so much more powerful hardware on their hands. Coat patterns and colors (in addition to more types of shinies considering they're all hand-made now instead of number-shifted), size differences, simple alt-colors like the four seasons of that new-ish deer pokemon, could all be reasonably achieved instead of IVs to have a more personal and visible demonstrations of indivuality.


This is really a silly criticism.
"Being unable to move while petrified is a frustration."
"Missing every attack while I'm blinded is a frustration."

Like, I do get where it's coming from, but to say that you don't like a couple of status effects, in an RPG, and cite it as a reason that Pokémon isn't good, is silly.


Eh~ That's very subjective. Puzzles are always a hit-and-miss no matter what game series you're talking about, anyway, because not everyone is going to a pproach a puzzle the same way. The best ones in the Pokémon series were the ones that "worked" by letting you bypass the puzzle with the gym trainer fights (or to put another way, bypass the fights by doing the puzzle).


EVERY generation has a bunch of meh pokemon. Like, as much as I love (and will defend) the simplicity of the first gen pokemon, have you looked at them lately? Most fighting types are uncanny-valley looking blobby humanoids, while both Magneton and Dugtrio are just three times their unevolved forms. Meanwhile, whatever that new thing is called in the latest generation (dynamax or gigantimax or whatever) is literally just the same pokemon but like the size of Godzilla for some reason (unless you're the water starter, then you're the same size and you get to wear Professor Farnsworth's Fing-longer). All generations have elements that are bereft of creativity.


The Pokédex, particularly the further back you go, is actually some of my favorite bits of the games because of how dark and sometimes-over-the-top it goes. It really showcases the roots that most pokemon designs have in yokai or other mythological tales, and makes up the pokemon to be a little larger than life. If the rest of the franchise had not been geared as hard toward younger children, I would have loved to have seen a slightly-more-mature (like on the level of most Zelda games) evolution of the series. Basically something like how the official manga did.


I'm not sure about true popularity, but as far as team suggestions for Kanto region games go, it goes Charizard>Venusaur>Blastoise.


That's something all the most popular fangames tackle, is making the AI better in some way (some go so far as to give it "competitive" AI), but that's really not something I've ever wanted (beyond what we already got in the Battle Tower and similar areas). Especially now that I'm able to see how the typing system makes HP matter so much less in Pokémon than in any other RPG, I am perfectly happy with the AI being so easy and abusable.

One thing the series needs, though, is a built-in difficulty system (and not just official Nuzlocke modes, though that would be fun, too). I've heard that Diamond and Pearl separately had hard and easy modes, respectively, but they were locked behind beating the game which at the very least defeats the purpose of easy mode.

I kind of see that? Gen 1 had some absolute stopping points for a 'reasonable' party where you pretty much had to go into the wilderness and beat up wild mons for petty rewards to get by, while as at least in my experience I quickly overleveled every major challenge in Ultra Moon just trying to sort of catch things on the way. Not enough to sweep the Elite Four without paying attention to types, but darn close. My Mawile (which is basically the ace of my UM team) and starter (Decidueye) had both breached level 80.


I grouped these together because what I wanted to say about them was to relate an observation that was once made to me, and sort of changed the way I looked at it. Pokemon is not designed like a tactical RPG. It has elements of that, but it's first and foremost something of an open world exploration game. While there is combat strategy and careful power raising, the core of the experience of Pokemon is wandering around, exploring, and discovering. And the most meaningful discoveries you make are the ones about the mons themselves. EVs and IVs in particular are both included and obfuscated in order to make individual pokemon feel more like real animals and less like constructed units. There are common traits to a particular species, but a given creature can have its own strengths and weaknesses. My pet cat at home is not interchangeable with every other housecat; he's extremely affectionate but doesn't like to run around. Even when playing he'll quickly ambush a toy and won't be led on an extended chase. And he tends to hold onto it, too. Similarly, the Mawile I raised in Ultra Moon is not and is not supposed to be interchangeable with every other Mawile. I've done the math and she has an absolutely amazing physical attack almost as good physical defense and special defense as well, but no speed to speak of. Because of that, I didn't really bother with status moves on her, since she wouldn't typically negate the input turn against a real foe and could generally just knock off a huge chunk of hp instead. Similarly, through the first half of the game I ended up using a Slowpoke I caught basically right at the start because, despite Slowpoke not normally being a Pokemon I would try to raise, this one just kept getting good level-ups that let it punch above its weight class, putting on a great show in the first two trials. I wouldn't take just any slowpoke (well, slowbro by then) through the Ultra Wormhole to yawn at legendary mons, but I did take that one. This is especially noteworthy because I also snagged an abra at about the same time, but because that 'mon had a pathetic special attack IV, Slowpoke was actually a better psychic-type attacker than Kadabra. Essentially, you have all these little secret or semi-secret variance values like IVs, Nature, and so on in order to make Pokemon feel more unique and to get the player to relate to them as raising a pet not preparing a unit.

The difficulties of certain mons, though somewhat nerfed with anti-frustration features in the later games like EXP share, also add in to the 'sense' that Pokemon are living things. They have their own needs and what's good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. You don't raise a magikarp the same way you raise a ghastly, even doing it in a casual sense. Magikarp is a fragile thing, and it can't fight for itself, but when it becomes Gyrados it's suddenly a powerhouse. Ghastly, with its immunity to normal moves, can whittle down even much stronger foes and evolve quickly (as long as they're the right foes) but changing into Haunter doesn't fundamentally change the 'mon the same way. Where IVs and Nature made distinction between individuals, this makes distinction between species not just in how they fight one-on-one but in how they 'handle' and what they 'feel like' to use and play with, reinforcing the idea that pokemon are distinctive creatures. I feel like, while it's usually brought up more in a sense of competitive balance, the labyrinth of typing is part of this. Because, unlike Magic, Pokemon is designed for the casual player first and the competitive player second, I feel like an analysis of the design needs to take into account how a first time player with limited awareness approaches it. With so many types and the ability to do combinations, it ends up feeling like a given pokemon species is its own bizarre thing, more or less. There are commonalities, like most water-types being weak to grass, but even then you encounter exceptions (darn you, Araquanid). What seems like a frustrating exercise in reference material to an adult is more part of the weird safari to a kid.

By contrast, I'd like to talk about Battle Pets. I don't know who else here plays World of Warcraft, but several expansions ago now they introduced a small system that was basically regarded as "Pokemon in WoW", called Battle Pets, by which you could use the little normally cosmetic companion pets that had been collectables from the start to battle other critters, NPC trainers, and even other players. And Battle Pets is designed like a tactical combat game. In a sense, it "fixes" some of these problems with Pokemon. Every pet species is exactly one type, and each type of pet has a single weakness and a single resistance as well as a singular special power. There are only three stats: Health, Power, and Speed. A pet's stats are based on a few traits; Level (which can be trivially maxed), Species, Rarity (which can be trivially upgraded to max), and Breed... but the breeds are fairly simplistic. There's only one breed for Little Deathwing, so every copy of that pet is going to be exactly the same. For Flayer Younglings, there's more, but only three or four so it's rather trivial to farm the one you want. Every pet has a move pool of six moves of which three at a time are active, and they're in three 'slots' so the choice of active move set is A or B three times and you can change it freely between battle. There are no natures, abilities, or what have you locked to individual pets or really individual species, at best something might have a signature move. All dragons are weak to humanoid attacks, resistant to flying-type attacks, and do double damage the turn after they reduce a foe's health to a value below 50%. All critter types are vulnerable to beast damage, resistant to elemental damage, and immune to control-cast effects. A rare-quality Flayer Youngling of the breed that prioritizes speed is always going to have a 325 speed at max level, meaning you can know exactly what it will go before and what it will go after, which is critical to setting up potent move combos with the limited pool. Everything is on the table, like you want from game pieces in a tactical combat game, but for the same reason it could never really recapture the magic of Pokemon. You don't really bond to your pets the same way, or experience raising them, because they are game pieces, while pokemon are concepted as creatures.



I think Luna covered these. The Ride Pager in UM was pretty freeing, though, since it meant no HMs for overworld exploration. As to the puzzles... they're not Zelda dungeon puzzles but then they're not supposed to be.


Now this one got me, especially hearing the birds got regional variants at some point. At the least they're rare enough to be functionally unique in a given region. There are exceptions; there are at least two Lunala in my UM game: Nebby and the one the recon squad let me ride (along with their Soleago). But then it's strongly implied there's only one Necrozma. Some should be truly unique, but then you can go around catching them any given game. I think with the Ultra Wormhole accessing other worlds/realities that MAYBE the Mewtwo I have in UM is not the one from Kanto but... yeah, Legendary pokemon are mechanically bizarre, particularly out-of-gen non-plot legendaries.


At first I wanted to offer hardy support for this because Hau was a total flop as a rival, but then I remembered that they sort of... muddied the idea of the "Rival" character for UM. Hau picks a starter after you (The weak one), and challenges you after the Elite Four but he's not the only recurring trainer. Guzma and Gladion were much better rivals with harder fights and more compelling stories. Their role sifts out to be somewhere between the Role of Gary/Blue (who was a GREAT rival as a kid because he was such a jerk and always one step ahead. Running into and battling his slightly nicer older self before Battle Tree was a trip) and that of Giovanni in Gen 1 (Recurring boss) so even though Hau was totally lame I didn't feel underserved in having at least a few compelling folks to clash with.

I honestly take my experience with Guzma's first fight as overall a success with UM's design in terms of its NPCs. I went straight back to the garden after a trial to talk to Lillie and ended up in a pretty desperate battle because I'd done so in enough haste that I didn't take a center and thus had most of my team unconscious going into Guzma. It ended up being the one time in the playthrough I went for battle item spam to clear a major plot encounter, and while later encounters with Guzma, going at him fresh or mostly fresh, were a good deal easier he still had some really solid fight in him during those later battles. On the downside, I think part of why I ran straight off was not just excitement but because the game had, until then, been very good about auto-healing your pokemon before/after decisive battles so there's still a degree of jank to it you could criticize.

First, I want to say that I hate the idea that your opinion should matter any less because you don’t play competitively (or the corollary that the competitive mindset is the “correct” one for analyzing a game, especially Pokémon).

Second, to be fair, the original gen1 was extremely obtuse and unclear about almost every facet of its gameplay. One little touch I absolutely adore about the GBA remakes is that they add in a little line for each of the three starters to hint at how they’re supposed to affect the difficulty (for example, it tells you to “raise [Charmander] patiently”).


I’ll cut off the full paragraph there, but I just love how you put that. I think a lot of H’ardcore gamers tend to forget that bit, about making each pokemon you catch feel more personal. There are even hints from NPC dialogue in the first few gens -- the same ones that put an emphasis on the meta-social aspect of the game -- to compare your pokemon to the same ones your friends have, even if they’re the same breed/species, to get that feeling.

Mind you, I still understand people’s problem with these stats being hidden, and I think that they must have the technology by now to give each breed/species actual individual, randomized looks instead of just small stat differences, but I wanted to quote that bit because it’s said so well.


My first reaction to this was:


And then I had to go and look that up. No wonder that was a point of confusion/contention. Though, I guess to be fair you were always able to trade/battle other people who had gone out and captured their own legendaries, so I guess they were always in a weird space, a bit like Legendary permanents in Magic (especially since they changed the Legendary rule).


I don’t agree with any of those conclusions, really.

I have never felt “unrewarded” from a gym battle.

I have never had to “gimp myself.”

I have always found them to offer more of a cognitive challenge than anything.

One thing I want to clarify that I don’t think you’re operating with the same assumption: challenging =/= difficult. If I sweep the gym with a single pokemon because they’re the right type and have the right moves, then I feel rewarded for having chosen to bring that pokemon into my team in the first place, no matter how “easy” it was to beat that “boss”.

As far as the correlation goes, it’s as I just said about sweeping with a certain type. Super-effective moves, especially when getting STAB, can deal so much damage that a majority of pokemon (whether yours or your opponent’s) can and do simply go down in 2-3 hits if not OHKOs. The defensive stats just end up being less important for most pokemon than being able to resist the opponent’s attack type, which is why it’s so nice to be able to not just be able to read the AI like a Dr. Seuss book, but also the way the default shift battle option just lets you change out for free.


Oh, I’ll admit that in gens 1 and 2, the lack of information on what you were getting was terrible since you could (and, given pokemon movepools at the time, often did) end up with a useless move, but from gen 3 onward, when you could see what the move did before you chose what to erase? It’s great IMO.

And yes, the extremely short version of my argument is “frustrating choice = interesting choice”.



Not to make a big deal about it, but I don’t think I ever knew that about you.


Without getting into the more “modern” games that add some… I guess QOL stuff? that I haven’t played, the EV/IV stuff was supposed to become apparent by catching a bunch of pokemon or by comparing your pokemon with your friend’s pokemon. Like, to take Tevish’s example Mawhile, maybe yours is so slow you can never get off a flinch because you’re never moving fast enough, but your friend has a Mawhile that’s the VIP of their team because it’s fast enough to get those crucial flinches. Even if you were playing alone, the replay value of being able to play through with different pokemon every time, maybe you pick the same starter again because you liked it and notice it’s able to take hits better this time around.

Shinies (along with the much-rarer Pokérus virus) were supposed to just come about naturally via many hours of playing against the RNG machine -- with the notable exception of the red (shiny) Gyarados that acts as a storyline boss in gen 2. IMO they were always too rare and the tools they added in to make them “easy” to obtain didn’t fix the base problem of being too rare, it just added optional hoops to go through if you wanted to force it.


(See earlier comment about yokai)

To not brush off your comment completely, I find it charming. It doesn’t feel any less outrageous than any of the seemingly-normal bits of “lore” the games have outside of the Pokédex, such as turning living, sapient animals into light to store in mirror-spheres as your willing slaves that can then be digitized and transferred over wi-fi. For example, learning that the Gardevoir you spent ages training up from a tiny pathetic Ralts will give its life trying to protect you and can create black holes to do so is just icing on the cake.


This criticism in particular is extremely justified, IMO, particularly because with each new generation and graphical improvement, Game Freak seemed to want to make it appear more lived-in, but instead it became more and more obvious how much of a false façade it all is (like that old cartoon joke about the buildings just being painted on the walls). I seem to recall that being a HUGE criticism of Sword/Shield, too, because there were obvious storefronts with doors and windows but invisible walls were everywhere and you couldn’t go in.