Unpopular Pokemon opinions

  • ORAS is better than Emerald
  • Cynthia isn't that hard
  • Purugly is adorable!
  • Cyrus is not a deep character. He is a villain. (I honestly find it concerning whenever i see people say stuff like "NGL Team Galactic pretty cool. Cyrus do be havin' good points.") He is delusional and the only reason why the Grunts were working for him was they didn't know what they were doing. Scr*w Team Galactic.
  • Cynthia is attractive but not THAT attractive.
  • Lilly should've took Nebby with her to Kanto
 
I don't think gen 2 is that great honestly. So many of the new Pokémon are either bad, mediocre until gen 4 where they got evolutions, have lackluster move pools, or are unavailable until the post game. I've always struggled with making a full team of new Pokémon in GSC. And the level curve is annoying as well.
 
I don't like Eevee. Guess I know why people like it but I just don't.

Also the Kanto starters are way too common in merch and should leave some room for other generations. Like how come we've never seen basic merch of backpacks and t-shirts and whatnot featuring Turtwig, Chimchar, and Piplup and just those three? The Kanto ones are EVERYWHERE.

Eevee is also everywhere too.

Anyway I like Inteleon and Gen 8's fossil Pokemon are the best fossil Pokemon.

I also didn't find Mystery Dungeon's stories all that remarkable, same for mainline games.
 
I don't mind that pokemon has been using more or less the same formula for over 20 years since as far as mon rpgs go there isn't anything quite like it.

Not that other mon rpgs are bad, pokemon just has a fun accessibility streak that I enjoy quite a bit.
 
People tend to be pretty unfair to the 3D models compared to the sprites of Pokemon.
 
Striker Mario Boogaloo said:
People tend to be pretty unfair to the 3D models compared to the sprites of Pokemon.
Click to expand...

that being said i do think the textures are too unsaturated and need their colors better, the mystery dungeon games had better pokemon models
 
I know but people tend to judge Pokemon just by their idles where they are just... standing there. They compare the idles to the premade poses you find in games up to Gen 5. Hell some people even compare some models infavorably to some Gen 5 ones, but Gen 5 animations don't look very good. The thing is, those sprites have benefit of being static, so any appropriate pose would work, but for a 3D model that has several animations, not really? If you want to judge a Pokemon's depiction from Gen 6 and on, look at all their animations, not just their idle.

However most people do think the "suspended by a string" animation for some flying Pokemon look crap and I have to agree. Wingull though, I think it works since they're gliders, but seeing Xatu suspended like that just looks sad.
 
Striker Mario Boogaloo said:
However most people do think the "suspended by a string" animation for some flying Pokemon look crap and I have to agree. Wingull though, I think it works since they're gliders, but seeing Xatu suspended like that just looks sad.
Click to expand...

Well Xatu I find is ok since as a pokemon it barely moves anyway. It's based off totem poles I believe.
 
Mcmadness said:
I don't mind that pokemon has been using more or less the same formula for over 20 years since as far as mon rpgs go there isn't anything quite like it.

Not that other mon rpgs are bad, pokemon just has a fun accessibility streak that I enjoy quite a bit.
Click to expand...
Adding on to this, I much prefer and would much rather play again any Pokémon game where there just aren't a lot of changes compared with earlier games than a Pokémon game where there are quite a few changes, but a lot of them are really bad.
 
I think the amorphous and the mineral Pokemon are the main attractions for each Generation. Examples of such Pokemon include Gengar, Garbodor, Vanilluxe, and Polteageist. This is the aspect that makes Pokemon very unique compared to its peers, for being allowed to have creatures that break any sort of mould, whereas a lot of its peers would prefer something that focused on one angle like just focusing on beasts and other animals. The starters will never tread the ground, so basically those Pokemon tend to be found during the journey.

Also, I would prefer if pseudo-legendary Pokemon take on non-Dragon types, because we already have too many with Dragon-types. Wouldn't it be cool if the unpopular types have great Pokemon associated with them? Tyranitar is a great example: its type combination Rock/Dark would've lend itself to many weaknesses, but between its movepool, stats, and an ability that compliments its type, it ended up fantastic. I would like to have, say, a Grass/Bug with this type combination even though it's generally not great, mainly to see how well it could be improved.

Finally, removing the availability of certain moves is overall an improvement. I think that, as far as movepools go, it will eventually bloat the Pokemon's moves in a way that makes their pool overwhelming. As an example, if you compare the egg move list for a Gen 1 to 5 Pokemon with a Gen 6+ Pokemon (pre Gen-8), you might notice how streamlined the latter is, while the former got too bloated for its own good. Also, certain moves are very unlikely to find use, so I don't think anybody would miss Barrage, of all moves. Also, another unpopular opinion related to this is: the removal of Pursuit is a net positive to the game. I have a feeling that the move was introduced as a way to balance Psychic-types further, but now it ended up making a liability out of types that are weak to it even when Psychics are not a problem anymore, not to mention how even if not weak to that move, it ends up favouring the attacker entirely by creating a checkmate position.

Thank you for reading.
 
  • Like
Reactions: zel
This franchise is actually pronounced as "poke-mon" because people didn't bother to type é instead of e to differentiate the sounds
 
E with that mark is not on my keyboard though and I'm too lazy to find out the keyboard combo to properly input it in.

I'm not opposed to just renaming it to Pokey Mon.
 
Stats are boring, play with your favorites.
and,
The best part of the games are the human npcs.
 
Last edited:
There should be another Pokémon game that's entirely double battles, like Colosseum and XD: Gale of Darkness.
 
Bulbasaur is the better pick of the three. Come on guys! Charizard is only useful against Erika! The first three gyms are Brock (Rock), Misty (Water), and Surge (Lightning)! Instant win with the grass type!
 
thats unpopular? i see a LOT of people saying gen 5 is their favorite. a lot!
i havent actually played a real pokemon game but ive still had two phases and gen 5 is my fav too
 
My unpopular opinion: Gen 7 is the best. Alola is a really unique region since it's split into four interesting islands, there's no really outright bad new Pokémon and most of the new Pokémon are good too, the characters are fun, and it got rid of HMs.
 
supermariofan said:
Bulbasaur is the better pick of the three. Come on guys! Charizard is only useful against Erika! The first three gyms are Brock (Rock), Misty (Water), and Surge (Lightning)! Instant win with the grass type!
Click to expand...

It's generally agreed that Squirtle is the best pick of the three, Smogon's tier list for Red, Blue, and Yellow and FireRed and LeafGreen puts Squirtle above both Bulbasaur and Charizard, and they explain why. Bulbasaur, for example, in RBY has to rely on Body Slam a lot, while Vine Whip falls off quickly while in FR and LG, it has to heavily rely on Sleep Power and Leech Seed as its main strategy, heavily reliant on TMs and HMs (such as Secret Power and Strength), and it falls off in the midgame (it especially struggles against Team Rocket with their poison and flying types). It's really only good against Gym Leaders, but it struggles in routes and against trainers since there's a lot of grass resistant Pokemon on the routes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back