Aesthetics vs. functionality?

[Togechu]

I do treat my Poke's like friends, but I still don't use ugly Pokemon. Especially Grotle. I hate those things so much that I put a few in my Ranch just so I could exile them to the outside of the Ranch, with no way back in...

 

[thetifftiff]

I guess I'd have to say I go more for functionality. Basically I will train any fully evolved pokemon as long as I can get one with good enough ivs and a workable nature so looks don't matter though whether it's got good base stats or not doesn't bother me either, any pokemon can be usable in the right situation and getting as many streaks as I can in the Battle Hall makes it more fun.

In game I go for functionality as well but less about ivs and natures and more about type advantages against the gyms and elite four. I guess there I do care a little more about aesthetics as I dumped my staraptor in Platinum as soon as I had access to swablu.

Wow, I just noticed what a massive run on sentence most of that first paragraph is. ^^;

 

[Infinity Mk-II]

"Strong Pokémon. Weak Pokémon. That is only the selfish perception of people. Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favorites."

Aesthetics that can stand against functionality with effort. That is... I won't use something that is absolutely worthless in battle. But I'll use anything that can fight to take down a legendary 20 levels above it.

Moves, types, and the strategy within the entire team is fundamental. Which is why to me double battles are easier, as I tend to pair their attacks.

 

[Battaman]

Neither, I have replayed my games LOADS of times, and I use different Pokemon every time, I think I have used most Pokemon in the games (well not of gen4, but of gen1-3, I think I have used most) excluding event legendaries. I like to try new things, I also like to "make the best of what I got/get" rather then "choose from all there is and make the best of that" if you understand.

 

[Rellik]

I like to try and balance the two, but I guess I go for Aesthetics more.