• Due to the recent changes with Twitter's API, it is no longer possible for Bulbagarden forum users to login via their Twitter account. If you signed up to Bulbagarden via Twitter and do not have another way to login, please contact us here with your Twitter username so that we can get you sorted.
  • Pronoun field selections have been updated! To ensure they show up correctly, please reselect your preferred option(s) in the Account details page. Click here for more information.

Official Pokémon Sword and Shield speculation thread (Updated June 5th, 2019)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Myth

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
2,555
If I'm not addressing a certain point, feel free to point it out to me. I'm going to respectfully ask, however, that you cut out the assumptions (re: the bold) because it's not helping your argument at all. I don't intentionally ignore points and to be honest, we've been back and fourth with this for the past day or two, so forgive me if I forget to acknowledge every single detail.

It isn't an assumption. You rejected my example.



You made a statement stating that "if the player has an inherent advantage they will have no challenge". I've shown you that this isn't true with my example of a numerical advantage (however, I've used other examples responding to other parts of the post too), and then you rejected my example. That's what I meant.

Also, I didn't say that you "intentionally have ignored my point". I meant you rejected it. Sorry if the term used (ignore) wasn't the best. But I'd like to ask you to stop making assumptions about me being making assumptions. Actually, I agree with you that assumptions add absolutely nothing to the discussion.

It might not be. Again, significantly less challenging does not equal hard mode. That's... normal mode in most games.

Honestly, at what point do you want to get here? I mean, difficulty setting options would make different types of players having different types of experiences. Obviously, the easy mode would be the least challenging, and the difficult mode the most challenging, and that's the whole point.

The point is to be less or more challenging. I'm not discussing what would be a "hard mode" or not. You are trying to relativize what would be hard. I see no need to do that. But if you want to know, if even with the inclusion of all those systems and improvements you would still find the "challenge mode" to be the "normal mode", so I don't think I'm asking for a "hard mode", properly. I don't think the game needs to reach a soulsike difficulty-level or whatever.

The problem here is that the reason I had to strategize in the situation regarding Chikorita vs Falkner is because I was at a disadvantage from the start. Because Chikorita/Bayleef are weak to Flying-types, it takes more than just spamming one attack to win; it takes thinking creatively. The same can be said with Bugsy. When you're at a disadvantage, you have to strategize and think of ways to give you a proper advantage and turn the match in your favour. This goes full circle to what I mentioned before in regards to limitations on the player. The player may not intentionally limit themselves, but by the time they face Falkner or Bugsy they will likely only rely on their Grass starter for the heavy lifting, leading to more of a challenging feeling due to, again, being at a disadvantage from the start.

I just quoted Chikorita's example there because you had to do something more than just press A. Just because of that...But here's a question: do you agree with me that at the Flint's example (with the changes I've cited: better AI, better moveset, better team etc.), you would have to think creatively too, even at advantage?

There would be no challenge if, again, hard mode was implemented through incremental level increases in the same manner that B2W2 implemented. That's the entire reason I brought up the level argument in the first place.

But the Chikorita's example only contradicts that. I even said you that I got to Bugsy with Bayleef, with a great level advantage, and still lost. Not only was it challenging, but I also lost many times. Even if we're talking about incremental level increases in the same manner that B2W2 implemented, it would not mean that there would be no challenge, because levels aren't everything in Pokémon battles. You could grind a lot to reach the gyms levels, and still lose because of the AI's strategies, because of the items, or because of supereffective movements, etc.

If you can still hit the A button and spam (insert super-effective move) on Gym Leaders, then please do tell where the challenge is?

See the example above, it applies to types advantages, as well.

Glad we got that cleared up, then. It's pretty clear you see difficulty in a different lens than I do. From the way I see things, there is no difficulty if the game is handholding me. You seem to think that is still the case, so we'll just leave it be.

I find hand holding to be a problem too.

Yes, players can obtain these Pokemon if they wish to, that way they would have a significantly easier time later on in the game. These are elements intentionally placed by Game Freak to make the challenge easier. Does the challenge exist at all? I believe you still argue yes, but I would still firmly disagree in that. You can ignore getting a Mareep, place a limitation on yourself that you're not going to rely on a Pokemon pretty much thrown at you to make the first Gym Battle easier and place yourself at an intentionally disadvantage, therefore creating that challenge.

The challenge... just isn't there if you're utilizing the options the games give you to make that challenge easier. If you have an inherent advantage, that's no longer hard mode in my eyes. That's essentially Easy/Normal mode, but you may see things differently than I do, here.

Just because the challenge becomes easier doesn't necessarly mean it no longer exists. The whole relativization of what would be hard or not is another discussion, as I said above.

Of course, you could say that for you the challenge no longer exists, because you didn't even had to think creatively to go through the gym. But in a mode with a good AI, good movesets, well developed teams, using items etc., an elemental advantage would not give you that much of an advantage.

Again, if there's a point I'm not acknowledging here, feel free to explain it, but it's really not helping your argument at all to assume I'm glazing over details intentionally.

I've already addressed this up above anyway.

Please, sometimes you have interpreted things that I said wrongly, and even so I was not saying that you were doing wrong assumptions about it, I just focused on explaining it to you again, in the best possible way I could, could you have the same goodwill?

I believe that you are separating things in black and white only because you're ignoring/rejecting any level of challenge that does not reach the exact point you want it to (that would be with handicaps), and try to narrow them down them to the same level of "non-challenges". I and other users have already given you several examples of challenges, and you try to narrow them down because it do not reach the level of challenge you are setting up yourself only.

If I'm misunderstanding you, feel free to explain.

I still think it's not and if I may be honest I feel like metaphorically you're comparing apples to pineapples and justifying the such because they both have "apple" a part of their names.

Yes, Pokemon is a grindy, turn-based JRPG. No, it is not like any other turn-based, grindy RPG because again, Pokemon follows its own rules.

We certainly disagree here, I don't think I'm making that kind of a comparison. But yeah, let's get over it.

The only example which you've given that's plausible that would make the game in any sense remotely challenging is level scaling, and that's pretty standard fare for... most difficulties in RPGs, iirc. The complex dungeon thing I don't really care about nor does that have anything to do with making battles themselves easier or harder (I mean, you mention ditching trainer healing, but I mean, what's stopping me from using a Super Potion instead?).

Except it was not the only plausible example I gave. And by using Super Potions you would be spending your own resources, which in turn are not infinite. So there is a clear difference there.

Less of a challenge is not hard mode, it's normal mode.

In the beginning, you were not arguing that it would not be a "hard mode," but rather that "it would not be challenging". That is what we are discussing. There is no need to relativize what is hard and what's not. That way you're changing the whole subject of the dicussion.

...?? Wait, what??

ok now this went way over my head. The player and the AI are scaled so that they're equal to each other in level, they have max EVs, IVs, and +natures (nothing's stopping the player from accomplishing the very same thing), and you're... bringing luck in the equation for some reason? I'm massively confused now.

Most of the time I lost in battle facilities, I was playing "perfectly" but ended up losing by hax. That's what I meant. I personally think it would be interesting to review that in battles facilities (but this has nothing to do with this dicussion at all).

Depends. Let's get into the details, shall we?

  • Since we're talking about Gym Leaders, let's assume this is late game we're talking about here. I can send my Pokemon with an Amulet Coin first, likely a Pokemon that wouldn't matter too much if it fainted. I can weaken the Gym Leader's Pokemon and send in my strongest Pokemon later to basically finish the job.
  • If all of the Gym Leader's Pokemon were level-scaled such that they all matched the level of my strongest Pokemon, then this would be a much riskier strategy to pull off. But the thing about it is, with the first bullet point, I can act a bit recklessly under the assumption that I have that advantage to start with and I can just click A all night and day.

It still made a difference, you lost a Pokémon slot, , so I don't really understand what you're trying to say here.

It depends on the handicap, does it?

Sure. There are few exceptions as I said earlier.

Disagree here. If I take a Water type from my PC to put in my team (using your words "prepare their team for that occasion") just to click A on Surf for all of maybe 15 seconds against a Fire-type Gym Leader, then I fail to see where the challenge lies. You prepare your team to make the challenge easier, to eliminate as much of that challenge as possible, therefore the challenge is barely there to the point of where it might as well not be a challenge at all.

Ok, let's just agree to disagree. Really, there is not much else I can say about it without sounding repetitive.

Game Freak has introduced difficult elements in Pokemon games, and this is more evident in SM/USUM more than any other game prior with the implementation of Totem Pokemon, Island Kahuna matches, and Elite Four battles. It seems to me that you're not satisfied with the "challenge" that Game Freak has offered players so far, so from the best of my understanding, you would like a hard mode such that you would intentionally be placed at a disadvantage (debuffing the player or buffing the AI in this context doesn't matter because you'd be starting at a disadvantage either way). Which is.... essentially my whole perspective regarding difficulty. Game Freak implements it poorly to try to get players at a disadvantage by focusing more on level and altering movesets, but the player can overcome this difficulty rather easily making the difficulty pretty much negligible.

No, because the player can't "overcome the difficulty rather easily making it pretty much negligible". The first question was: "If the difficulty is still present as Game Freak intends for it to be, does that mean there's not a need for a hard mode to begin with considering that there are already hard elements to Pokemon games? "

I disagree. Because I think that what Game Freak tries to do is to make the game accessible for beginners, but that ends up making it very easy for veterans. That's the point. I want a more challenging mode. I read about your perspective regarding difficulty, and I saw what do you think about B2W2-like difficulty options, but I don't agree with you about that.

Considering that Game Freak intentionally allows players to EV train early if they so desired as a part of game design, I'd argue otherwise. Sure, you can botch up EVs pretty easily given multiple trainer battles,, but that's far past the point. Why is it then, that Game Freak doesn't flat-out introduce a mechanic that forbids your Pokemon from gaining EVs at all until post-game? If it's something that Game Freak truly did not intend, then why didn't they go out of their way to prevent it, then?

Sorry, to me it's clear that even if they don't stop you from using it, it's not their intention to that to be used on the main run. I don't find it productive to continue arguing about it because there are many exceptions (for example, in XY we had Super Training), but for me it's something clear.

For example, if we were to talk about XY, you have battles before gaining access to Super Training, and that already messes up your EVs. So you could argue that you would get a reset bag etc., but this is what is really "far past the point".

To begin with, I don't think Game Freak expects you to even spend that time leveling the EVs early in the game. But as I said, I don't find it productive to be arguing about this, we can agree to disagree here if you still think otherwise.

Sure. As a huge RPG player, there are tons of difficult games that don't make use of handicaps per se. Here, I'll list them for you:
  • Chrono Trigger
  • Xenosaga Series
  • Wild Arms Series
  • Dragon Quest (more specifically, VIII)
  • Pokemon Mystery Dungeon series (depending on the situation but can be difficult
  • Some Final Fantasy games
My gaming livelihood doesn't revolve around handicaps, despite what you seem to be implying. I just think that would be a better route for Game Freak to take in the implementation of better difficulty as a whole, but it won't happen, so I feel it's kind of pointless to argue about.

Please, I would like to ask you to stop already. I wasn't implying anything about your "gaming livelihood". Why are you saying these things? It doesn't have anything to do with the dicussion.

"Better difficulty", I don't understand why the difficulty has to reach the level that you are setting yourself only. But let's just agree to disagree here.

.... Because I was talking about B2W2's challenge mode and how that's not a good way of implementing difficulty. For some strange reason you assumed that was my core point against difficulty as a whole, when it isn't.

The B2W2 challenge mode is also not just about levels tho.

Incremental level gains, not level scaling. Keep that in mind whenever I argue "overleveling".

And? I came back to see what was being discussed, and I already knew that.

Training multiple Pokemon is a element of what Pokemon games are. It doesn't say anything either way about difficulty whatsoever.

If you train many of them at the same time, they would stil end up getting underleveled by consequently tho.

Your entire preference of how Game Freak should implement difficulty period is subjective. We're simply arguing from different angles.

And no, it's not personal.

Sorry, but the way I see it, it is. What was proposed is something that makes the game more challenging. You even used phrases such as "would not be implemented in the best way", or "better difficulty," and "less challenge". Even regarding the B2W2 system, it still makes the game more challenging and harder. But it doesn't reach the level of difficulty you want to. As you yourself said, in your view it would be "a normal mode", not a "hard" one. But the discussion is not about that (the relativization about what is really hard). So yes, in the way I see it, you are the one who is judging on a personal and subjective side.

Pokemon games already do incremental levels gains, that's how Pokemon games have always worked. Each Gym Leader is progressively stronger than the last, each Gym Trainer as you go further in Routes are usually stronger than the ones in the routes before, etc. The problem here lies (at least, from my perspective), is that Game Freak's current implementation of incremental levels is not satisfactory to those arguing for more difficulty. But it becomes a circular problem because then if Game Freak increases the level even more, then who's to say that won't be enough? There's a fine line between a proper challenge and flatout being unfair to the player. If Game Freak took B2W2's challenge mode, put it in steroids and doubled the level of every Gym Leader from the last, that would by all technicalities be a "challenge", but it would be an unfair one. There's a balance to be had here and incremental leveling is just not it.

I meant incremental levels over a "normal" mode. About incremental leveling not being able to reach the "balance", I disagree.

edit:

one thing:

- Again, overleveling the NPC is an argument against B2W2's Challenge Mode and arguing why it's a poor implementation of difficulty in general. There's a difference between you personally disagree with me and it not being true as a matter of objective fact. You personally disagree with me, which is fine, but your opinion is not a matter of objective fact and I appreciate it if you would stop insinuating as such. I would like to think I'm not spouting falsities and simply expressing my personal belief of difficulty modes not meshing well with Pokemon games, so the implication that I am is fairly offensive, if I'm going to be honest.

Disagree with me all you'd like. That's fine, everyone has a different ideas and approaches in regards to Pokemon games and I think that's what makes discussions like these very interesting. It starts getting into unnecessary territory when you imply or claim that one side is spouting falsities so I'm going to respectfully ask you to refrain from such terminology. If you disagree with me personally, you can say explicitly as such.

Discussions are clashes between ideas, but commonly one side can make use of fallacies (even if unconsciously). Dismantle those fallacies should not be offensive. You've made statements that are not true at all. And obviously, anyone can speak about or point that out. I would see why not.

As for the example cited especifically, I have already said and explained with all good will in earlier parts of the discussion why that statement isn't true. If you still do not think so, feel free to prove me otherwise, if you feel like doing it.

Otherwise, please, unless I'm really offending you (or breaking some other forum's rule), do not try to oversee what I'm saying or not.

edit 2:

whew this is starting to get way past the point of this thread -- i have a good feeling this may go on for a while so @Myth if you want, we can continue this in PM or drop it altogether but at this point I feel like we're clogging up the thread. Let's just leave it at you have your personal perspectives about difficulty and I have mine.

Wall texts are not a problem regarding forums. But when the subject begins to stray too far from the thread subject, it begins to become one. But I think you still have the right to reply, so if you still want to add something to the open points, feel free to.
 
Last edited:

PkmnTrainerV

Flame Trainer
Joined
Jun 5, 2016
Messages
11,647
Reaction score
26,871
Wall texts are not a problem regarding forums. But when the subject begins to stray too far from the thread subject, it begins to become one. But I think you still have the right to reply, so if you still want to add something to the open points, feel free to.

You could at least use more spoiler tags, since people on mobile would have to literally scroll non-stop for 15 minutes to bypass this wall, and ignore any other posts in the middle. The smaller posts seem to fade in between these walls of text.
 

badwolf1234

TRUE POKEMON LOVER
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,200
Reaction score
1,234
I did a small research for you guys. This is when we got news in May for the last three gens games.

B/W: May 7th - starters sihlouettes, then revealed on corocoro on the 12th (leak). Legends on the 28th.
B2/W2: May 12th (but 15th officially) - Corocoro.
X/Y: May 11th (but 15th officially) - Corocoro.
OR/AS: May 7th - Announcement.
S/M: May 10th - Trailer with starters, region and legends.
US/UM: Nothing. Announced in June.
Let's Go: May 30th - Announcement trailer.

Now, considering the past, we can expect something in the week from the 6th to the 12th or something during the last week of May, most likely the first option, considering all other main gen games had news during that week even if just through a leak.
Two months have passed since the announcement. We can now say that the worst (even if expected) of this marketing campaign is almost over. Just a week to go.
Make it from may 9 since goldeenweek is up until may 9 and gamefreak doesn't announce anything during goldenweek
 

Aussieportal

Australian
Joined
Mar 9, 2019
Messages
25
Reaction score
49
@Myth - Personally I do not mind you going into a lengthy discussion - in fact it shows your dedication to Pokemon, just that people including myself tend to tune out and your message kinda gets lost - even if you were on point in every sentence of your post. Believe me I can do my wall of text as well, just look at my Reddit posts. Having a tl dr section where you basically summarize your points help. That's just me though.

On the subject of waiting for Sw/Sh. I'm a patient man. I have stuff to do other than Pokemon. If I am hankering for more Pokemon I will play LeafGreen which I just got. Although now that I think about it, posting this and checking back on the forum every so often does make me a bit hypocritical.
 

RileyXY1

Young Battle Trainer
Joined
May 26, 2016
Messages
7,806
Reaction score
8,205
So, no official news related to pokemon SwSh for two months??
Just be patient, patient, patient..

It's gonna be May then..
They're not going to announce anything in the first week because of Golden Week (which is longer this year due to the imperial transition). Then, they have Detective Pikachu releasing on the 10th. We could see news in May, but I don't know.
 

Pulsaro23

Charizard Enthusiast (Do Not Disturb)
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,853
You know, with all the hype surrounding Detective Pikachu, one would think that they'd want to make a Sword/Shield announcement as soon as that comes out (especially if it gets the positive reception that almost everyone is expecting), since it would have higher chances of getting more exposure through social media and could get even more people interested in the games.
 

Shrapnel Stars

Planetary, Intergalactic
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
91
Reaction score
358
@Shrapnel Stars
To be honest, people aren't suggesting only increased levels, but also AI improvements, better movesets and better developed teams (level scaling was also suggested). The argument about level grinding only came about because some people said that a difficulty setting option would be useless if you could grind and overlevel the NPC. What isn't true, for all the reasons previously quoted. That's where the argument about grinding came from.

About the later, personally I'm not a fan the idea of imposing limitations on the main run. Pokémon is a game about choices. Imposing limitations, and therefore limiting those choices, doesn't seem to me congruent with what the series proposes at all. That would also affect the replay factor of the game. I think players should choose to play the way they want to, using whatever Pokémon they want to. That's a staple of Pokémon series. Should not be changed, imo.
Oh yeah, 100%. I don't want those kinds of limitations anywhere near a main run, for the exact reasons you stated. You experiment and play how you see fit.

I think I had it in my mind somewhere that a post talked about a side town for challenging content that might possibly be available to dabble in during the main run, and so most of what I was talking about ended up based on that. I was mostly just tossing in my two cents about what I considered challenging, as well. There's still a small section of the general Pokemon community that swears by level boosting alone, because I see them on other sites I frequent as well, and it just seems odd that some of those users haven't realized how easily that can be overcome.
 

colours

ꜰʟᴏᴡᴇʀ ꜰɪᴇʟᴅꜱ ❀
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
3,440
Pronouns
  1. She/Her
Honestly, at what point do you want to get here? I mean, difficulty setting options would make different types of players having different types of experiences. Obviously, the easy mode would be the least challenging, and the difficult mode the most challenging, and that's the whole point.

Kind of ruins the whole point of a Challenge Mode if there's significantly less of a challenge, but that's just me.

The point is to be less or more challenging.

Okay, now I don't agree with you here at all. Don't know how you would make Pokemon easier than what the standard difficulty would be considering Game Freak goes out of their way to make your journey easier in the slightest. You want Easy Mode? Just leave Pokemon switching as "Switch" instead of "Set". No, I'm very serious. That is literally the game's own definition of an easy mode. That is the game giving you a direct advantage that the AI has zero ability to do. The AI is about to send a Pokemon and the game is giving you as the player all the time in the world to think about what choice you would make and strategize. You may disagree with how Game Freak implements it their way, but it's there for players to use.

And I've already raised my points earlier that aside from level scaling and better AI intelligence, there's not a whole lot Game Freak can do to make an effective "hard" difficulty. IMO, level scaling is not something they'll likely do (because I feel like the intent here is that the game tries to scale with what you should be at already), so raising levels/AI intelligence is the most we're likely going to get.

If you're still arguing within the realm of what Game Freak has the potential to do then sure, they can do a million things in a more challenging mode. They can flip the whole type chart upside down and make it so super effective attacks do less damage than they typically do. They can make it so that every Pokemon the player obtains would have a neutral nature at best. They could theoretically make it so that Gym Leaders don't have monotype teams so their Pokemon aren't as predictable, and give them better intelligence and hold items and give them perfect natures. Let's just go off the deep end here and say that your Pokemon has a higher chance than usual of being afflicted with a status ailment because why not? While we're on the subject, you get less EXP, too. Game Freak, as developers, have full and total control over the game and their own rules and they can just give the rules a middle finger in a harder difficulty because why not.

If this was any other JRPG other than Pokemon, then you'd be having a super solid point and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's pretty clear that Pokemon, at its core, is supposed to be lighthearted fun with both easy and hard elements to adjust at the player's own will. You have the freedom to do Nuzlockes as a "hard" mode if you want to. You have the freedom to do monotype runs if you want to. You have the freedom to do solo runs if you want to. That's intentionally making the game challenging, thus forcing you to strategize more than you usually would at the game's standard difficulty settings. In this sense, the game already has difficulty settings, whether you're satisfied with the difficulty settings Game Freak has already provided (in terms of giving the player total freedom to choose their own difficulty settings) is a different thing altogether. The problem with all of the "potential" examples as I've outlined above is that it flat out doesn't make sense for them to do any of those things because Pokemon has never been about being being unfair to the player to begin with. That's why B2W2 was pretty modest all things considered as far as implementation of a challenge mode is concerned because at absolute best you're fighting against AI that's on part with Battle Facility intelligence level, and that's not something players haven't been exposed to, before. Pokemon can be challenging (and it does have challenging elements) but not brutal. There's a fine line between the two.

The problem when you argue for difficulty modes is that you're advocating for something Game Freak has already technically done, but you personally disagree with and want it done differently. Which is fine on its own, but if TPC's constant marketing of the series is of any indication, Pokemon was never meant to be so rigidly structured as to appeal to some sort of super hardcore demographic that wants Pokemon to be as difficult as possible. It runs counter to the point of playing Pokemon in the first place. And sure, maybe some people's idea of having fun is enjoying a challenge! That's certainly understandable, which is why Pokemon games introduce challenging elements, not the kind of challenging difficulties that some people want. When people ask for adjustable difficulty, oftentimes they want things hard for the sake of being hard or "feeling" hard, when Pokemon games have never really been about that. That's why I mention that difficulty modes and Pokemon just don't mix well together, because that runs counter to the point of Pokemon in the first place. You're a young kid on a journey to be a Pokemon League Champion with some challenges along the way and some challenges afterwards. And if you still want more of a challenge, well there's options for you too. There's VGC tournaments you can participate in for a challenge so you can battle real life people (if applicable). Or you can participate in the post-game battle facilities because that's the point of them. Or, you can skip the games altogether and just use Pokemon Showdown because if a challenge is really what matters to you, then you're likely to be much more invested in the competitive side of things anyways rather than the in-game story of Pokemon.

So then, it still puzzles me why some people want Game Freak to make the main story of the games this super challenging arduous journey when they already have multiple other avenues present to seek that challenge. Aside from Nuzlockes and Mono-runs, you can also run all sorts of custom challenges (unevolved Pokemon only, Speedruns, etc) that give the very same challenging feeling without any kind of intervention from Game Freak whatsoever. The main Pokemon games have always been balanced between easy and not easy. You prepare for the parts that are not as easy and sleep on the easy ones. Adjustable difficulty the way some people want it just wouldn't make sense in this dynamic where every Gym Leader and Gym Trainer you meet has perfect movesets and strategy from the get go. The kind of human-like battle strategy and intelligence some people want in AI is better solved by just.... battling real people for a challenge instead of trying to gain that experience from an AI. Game Freak provides those options in a post-game battle facility to cater to those with a more competitive mindset, but the main story is geared towards those who are of more of a casual minded approach, but again, with difficult elements (Totem Pokemon in SM/USUM) in attempt to cater to those who still seek a challenge and want to strategize.

It paints a much clearer picture of how Game Freak doesn't have the flexibility to make hard mode anything much other than what they've implemented in B2W2, because simply it doesn't make sense for Pokemon games of all things to actively work against the player as a form of a "challenge". Pokemon games aren't designed to be unfair, you know.

I just quoted Chikorita's example there because you had to do something more than just press A. Just because of that...But here's a question: do you agree with me that at the Flint's example (with the changes I've cited: better AI, better moveset, better team etc.), you would have to think creatively too, even at advantage?

Sure.

But the Chikorita's example only contradicts that. I even said you that I got to Bugsy with Bayleef, with a great level advantage, and still lost. Not only was it challenging, but I also lost many times. Even if we're talking about incremental level increases in the same manner that B2W2 implemented, it would not mean that there would be no challenge, because levels aren't everything in Pokémon battles. You could grind a lot to reach the gyms levels, and still lose because of the AI's strategies, because of the items, or because of supereffective movements, etc.

Not really. Did you have a Pidgey/Pidgeotto? What about a Zubat? Whether intentionally or not, you placed that limitation on yourself to only face Bugsy with a Bayleef. Therefore, you placed that restriction on yourself. Your reasons for not using the options the game provides you is irrelevant, the bigger point being is that you rejected these options for the sake of having more of a challenge.

See the example above, it applies to types advantages, as well.

You said that anything other than hitting the A button continuously would be a satisfactory challenge. I'm still doing nothing but hitting the A button for x seconds to demolish (insert Gym Leader here) even with team preparation, so that's not exactly true.

Just because the challenge becomes easier doesn't necessarly mean it no longer exists. The whole relativization of what would be hard or not is another discussion, as I said above.

Already responded to this point in the paragraphs above.

Of course, you could say that for you the challenge no longer exists, because you didn't even had to think creatively to go through the gym. But in a mode with a good AI, good movesets, well developed teams, using items etc., an elemental advantage would not give you that much of an advantage.

"That much of an advantage" is still an advantage. What separates Battle Facility matches from Gyms is that I don't know what Pokemon any given AI would have (aside from perhaps the battle facility leaders, I believe) in a Battle Facility. In a Gym Battle I already have an idea of what type the Gym Leader is going to use simply by walking into the Gym so by definition giving me all the time in the world to prepare my team.

If I'm understanding correctly, you argue that the need to prepare in the first place is evident of a challenge. But I see things differently, and it's with an asterisk. If you're given time to prepare with knowledge of what the opponent will bring, that in itself means by default, even without knowing the kind of items or movesets that the AI would have, that by being given the opportunity to counterteam the Gym Leader, whatever challenge that would have initially been present is significantly reduced.

It's pretty clear we don't see eye to eye on this point either so let's just agree to disagree here.

Please, sometimes you have interpreted things that I said wrongly, and even so I was not saying that you were doing wrong assumptions about it, I just focused on explaining it to you again, in the best possible way I could, could you have the same goodwill?

I apologise but my biggest peeve is people making broad assumptions about me so I'd rather we leave that out entirely.

I believe that you are separating things in black and white only because you're ignoring/rejecting any level of challenge that does not reach the exact point you want it to (that would be with handicaps), and try to narrow them down them to the same level of "non-challenges". I and other users have already given you several examples of challenges, and you try to narrow them down because it do not reach the level of challenge you are setting up yourself only.

If I'm misunderstanding you, feel free to explain.

I already addressed this point up above in my initial four paragraph explanation, but I'll do my best to re-word it for clarification.

You are misinterpreting my position, to a point.

I don't personally believe one-sided difficulties are the way to go in Pokemon games. The thing is, by attempting to appeal to every Pokemon player ever, Game Freak has essentially restricted themselves in what they could do. I already mentioned that in theory they could do whatever they want, and your position seems to be that, because they can have a number of possibilities to adjust harder difficulties, that my claim of Game Freak not having breathing room doesn't have ground. But it's not really on a technical sense of things, it just flat-out wouldn't make sense for them to introduce difficulty modes because a large part of Pokemon is having easy and difficult elements to appeal to large group of playerbases. Incremental levels already wouldn't work as some sort of hard mode difficulty because that's something that they've already done and players have yearned for more, so they gave more of an incremental level difference.

Really though, I kind of wonder what the outcome would be if Game Freak removed Challenge Mode altogether but still kept the mechanics of it. If B2W2's standard playthrough was just that the Gym Leaders/Elite Four were 1-5 levels higher than normal with slightly higher intelligence, would some players still argue for a difficulty mode entirely?

Except it was not the only plausible example I gave. And by using Super Potions you would be spending your own resources, which in turn are not infinite. So there is a clear difference there.

I know it's not the only example you gave, did you forget I agreed with you on some of them? But I'm addressing this point in particular because it doesn't make sense to me in the grand scheme of things but I also recognize that, again, you see difficulty in a different scope that I do and you would like that to encompass caves/forests, as well. Personally, Pokemon caves and forests have never particularly been super long and NPC-assisted healing is only a thing in very specific plot-instances of the game, so I'd argue those instances wouldn't even matter if the NPC was there or not.

And yes, I have a finite use of items, but I can buy them in bulk to almost negate that concern. Trainer Battles on their own are not so challenging that I can't Amulet Coin through everything (even with one of your proposals which is reduced earnings), buy a bunch of Super Potions and use them conservatively that way.

You've made statements that are not true at all.

I've made statements that you disagree with. If something I've said is factually incorrect, then, it rests on your shoulders to prove to me that I am factually incorrect. I would think that I'm the sort of person that would correct my stance immediately if something I said was objectively false, but since this is a matter of debating opinions and perspectives and not a matter of debating facts, no one side can claim to be objectively correct over the other. With all due respect, that just comes across as obstinate and arrogant. But you do you.

---

I will not be responding to the rest of your points not because I don't have anything to say in response to them (because I do), but because we'd be here for forever and a day debating this. For the sake of this discussion (and this thread at large), it's best that we put it to rest and say that we agree to disagree with the majority of each other's positions and leave it at that. I maintain my position that difficulty just doesn't work in Pokemon games and you disagree with that notion, and that's fine. My goal in posting what I said initially is not to convince anyone of my perspectives because I know some people would want a harder difficulty regardless of what my own opinion is, and that in itself is fine. It's my own personal perspective that it wouldn't work in the same vein some people believe that it will.
 
Last edited:

Pulsaro23

Charizard Enthusiast (Do Not Disturb)
Joined
Dec 3, 2018
Messages
844
Reaction score
2,853
Well, since difficulty seems to be the hot topic of this thread at the moment, how about I throw my two cents in? So here're some of the changes that I think a good Challenge Mode could implement in Pokémon (note that some of this ides may have been brought up by others in this thread, but whatever):
  • Change the teams of the trainers (specifically the ones of the trainers after, let's say, the 4th gym). Have them be higher level, use Pokémon that are either at their first evolution stage or fully evolved, give them useful items and give them better moves. How about giving them some status moves (And I don't mean Protect on every Pokémon, but stuff like Bulk Up, Leech Seed, Thunder Wave. You know, stuff that would actually make sense to put on a Pokémon)? Or giving them moves that are super effective against their weaknesses?
  • Change the AI for the trainers. Now, contrary to what some may say, having a better AI for the overworld trainers would be a great improvement. There's a difference between having a NPC who keeps spamming Growl or moves that don't affect my Pokémon (like using Gound moves on a Flying type/Pokémon with Levitate or Normal moves on a Ghost type (insert obligatory "It Doesn't Affect Misdreavus" reference)) and one that uses either super effective moves or useful status moves (or both).
  • For duos, how about having the partners use Pokémon that compliment each other's? Like, for example, have one of the trainer's Pokémon be a glass cannon and the other one has a Pokémon that's more of a supporter/tank, with moves that increase the team's defences and moves that force your Pokémon to attack it instead of the obvious target.
  • Have some of the Gym Leaders' teams not be monotypes (like they did with Volkner in DP). Maybe even have a Pokémon that has a type advantage against the weaknesses of the Gym Leader's specialty while also being able to learn a move of the same type as the Gym Leader's Pokémon. Or even add a Gym Leader that doesn't specialize in any particular type, like Blue in GSC/HGSS and Champions like Cynthia and Diantha in DPPt, respectively XY.
  • Change the way Exp. Share works. In the past, it was a great way for the player to level up a recently caught Pokémon that they wanted to use on their team without have to grind unnecessarily. But now, ever since Gen VI, Game Freak decided to change it so that your entire team gets the experience, making some already strong Pokémon even stronger. I know some players (such as myself) don't like the idea, since the only other way to get your Pokémon up to speed with thee rest of your tema is by doing grinding, while other players appreciate the change, since it allows their competitive teams to reach Lvl. 100 faster. So why not please both groups by splitting the Exp. Share into two items: a normal Exp. Share (that is the same as the Pre-XY versions) and the Exp. Share DX (or Exp. Share Super or however you wanna call it, which is the same as the present day Exp. Share)? That way people that want to use the Exp. Share, but don't want to have their team be overleveled can use one, while those who want to get their teams to the max level as soon as possible or want to have an easier time can use the other.
 

Myth

Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2015
Messages
1,262
Reaction score
2,555
@colours
Okay, now I don't agree with you here at all. Don't know how you would make Pokemon easier than what the standard difficulty would be considering Game Freak goes out of their way to make your journey easier in the slightest. You want Easy Mode? Just leave Pokemon switching as "Switch" instead of "Set". No, I'm very serious. That is literally the game's own definition of an easy mode. That is the game giving you a direct advantage that the AI has zero ability to do. The AI is about to send a Pokemon and the game is giving you as the player all the time in the world to think about what choice you would make and strategize. You may disagree with how Game Freak implements it their way, but it's there for players to use.

It was just a theoretical example. In practice, it's not like I want them to do a less challenging mode. But well, I imagine that in an easy mode, challenges like Totems would be nerfed. It doesn't matter much, I'm not focusing too much on it, but in the most challenging mode.

And I've already raised my points earlier that aside from level scaling and better AI intelligence, there's not a whole lot Game Freak can do to make an effective "hard" difficulty. IMO, level scaling is not something they'll likely do (because I feel like the intent here is that the game tries to scale with what you should be at already), so raising levels/AI intelligence is the most we're get.

If you're still arguing within the realm of what Game Freak has the potential to do then sure, they can do a million things in a more challenging mode. They can flip the whole type chart upside down and make it so super effective attacks do less damage than they typically do. They can make it so that every Pokemon the player obtains would have a neutral nature at best. They could theoretically make it so that Gym Leaders don't have monotype teams so their Pokemon aren't as predictable, and give them better intelligence and hold items and give them perfect natures. Let's just go off the deep end here and say that your Pokemon has a higher chance than usual of being afflicted with a status ailment because why not? While we're on the subject, you get less EXP, too. Game Freak, as developers, has full and total control over the game and their own rules and they can just give the rules a middle finger in a harder difficulty because why not.

If this was any other JRPG other than Pokemon, then you'd be having a super solid point and we wouldn't even be having this discussion. It's pretty clear that Pokemon, at its core, is supposed to be lighthearted fun with both easy and hard elements to adjust at the player's own will. You have the freedom to do Nuzlockes as a "hard" mode if you want to. You have the freedom to do monotype runs if you want to. You have the freedom to do solo runs if you want to. That's intentionally making the game challenging, thus forcing you to strategize more than you usually would at the game's standard difficulty settings. In this sense, the game already has difficulty settings, whether you're satisfied with the difficulty settings Game Freak has already provided (in terms of giving the player total freedom to choose their own difficulty settings) is a different thing altogether. The problem with all of the "potential" examples as I've outlined above is that it flat out doesn't make sense for them to do any of those things because Pokemon has never been about being being unfair to the player to begin with. That's why B2W2 was pretty modest all things considered as far as implementation of a challenge mode is concerned because at absolute best you're fighting against AI that's on part with Battle Facility intelligence level, and that's not something players haven't been exposed to, before. Pokemon can be challenging (and it does have challenging elements) but not brutal. There's a fine line between the two.

The problem when you argue for difficulty modes is that you're advocating for something Game Freak has already technically done, but you personally disagree with and want it done differently. Which is fine on its own, but if TPC's constant marketing of the series is of any indication, Pokemon was never meant to be so rigidly structured as to appeal to some sort of super hardcore demographic that wants Pokemon to be as difficult as possible. It runs counter to the point of playing Pokemon in the first place. And sure, maybe some people's idea of having fun is enjoying a challenge! That's certainly understandable, which is why Pokemon games introduce challenging elements, not the kind of challenging difficulties that some people want. When people ask for adjustable difficulty, oftentimes they want things hard for the sake of being hard or "feeling" hard, when Pokemon games have never really been about that. That's why I mention that difficulty modes and Pokemon just don't mix well together, because that runs counter to the point of Pokemon in the first place. You're a young kid on a journey to be a Pokemon League Champion with some challenges along the way and some challenges afterwards. And if you still want more of a challenge, well there's options for you too. There's VGC tournaments you can participate in for a challenge so you can battle real life people (if applicable). Or you can participate in the post-game battle facilities because that's the point of them. Or, you can skip the games altogether and just use Pokemon Showdown because if a challenge is really what matters to you, then you're likely to be much more invested in the competitive side of things anyways rather than the in-game story of Pokemon.

So then, it still puzzles me why some people want Game Freak to make the main story of the games this super challenging arduous journey when they already have multiple other avenues present to seek that challenge. Aside from Nuzlockes and Mono-runs, you can also run all sorts of custom challenges (unevolved Pokemon only, Speedruns, etc) that give the very same challenging feeling without any kind of intervention from Game Freak whatsoever. The main Pokemon games have always been balanced between easy and not easy. You prepare for the parts that are not as easy and sleep on the easy ones. Adjustable difficulty the way some people want it just wouldn't make sense in this dynamic where every Gym Leader and Gym Trainer you meet has perfect movesets and strategy from the get go. The kind of human-like battle strategy and intelligence some people want in AI is better solved by just.... battling real people for a challenge instead of trying to gain that experience from an AI. Game Freak provides those options in a post-game battle facility to cater to those with a more competitive mindset, but the main story is geared towards those who are of more of a casual minded approach, but again, with difficult elements (Totem Pokemon in SM/USUM) in attempt to cater to those who still seek a challenge and want to strategize.

It paints a much clearer picture of how Game Freak doesn't have the flexibility to make hard mode anything much other than what they've implemented in B2W2, because simply it doesn't make sense for Pokemon games of all things to actively work against the player as a form of a "challenge". Pokemon games aren't designed to be unfair, you know.

Exactly, they have the potential to do many different things regarding it. Even if they wanted to go a little more further, they would not even need to change aspects of the core structure of the game (like type charts), actually. Why not boosts like those of the Totems for the Gym Leaders' Pokémon too (of course, as long as it's properly explained by the lore of the game)? Why not make gym leaders using the same amount of Pokémon as you do? Etc. There are many possibilities. And yeah, potentially speaking, they could even use the examples you gave as well.

About the freedom, Nuzlockes and the like can make the game more difficult, the problem is that in this way the player is self imposing the difficulty. I think here we will disagree, because if you believe that EVs and IVs are intended to be used in the main campaign, you will argue that not using them is also an auto-imposition of difficulty, so we will disagree.

I don't think the game should be unfair or brutal. The point is that Game Freak wants the game to be as accessible as possible for beginners. But Pokémon is a complex series, due to the amount of systems and mechanics it has, there is a big lap between the most novice players and the most veteran players. The way the game is being developed today (look at LGPE), veteran players can barely find challenges in the game, that would make them think creatively, or make them lose time grinding, or whatever, because the difficulty level is too low (speaking of a common gameplay, using the available resources, and without self-impositions of difficulty). That's a problem, imo.

At the same time, I am against just raising the difficulty level as it could hurt the beginners experience. Clearly, there are different types of players. Even though beginners become veterans later, new players will reach the franchise later too, so it's a constant, where there will always be two (or more) types of audiences playing your game. So why not two (or three) game modes, adapted to each specific audience?

Even going back to points where we might not agree (as for EVs, IVs and their use in the main campaign), hypothetically speaking, we could even imagine a "veteran" mode where that could be solved.

I disagree about the demographic statement. I mean, depends on what do you mean by super hardcore. Obviously, they will never be able to really please to "everyone". (But talking about difficulty) I think their games should at least have the potential to please both audiences. We can agree to disagree here.

I think post-game facilities and competitive are different topics (from the main game difficulty).

"Adjustable difficulty the way some people want it just wouldn't make sense in this dynamic where every Gym Leader and Gym Trainer you meet has perfect movesets and strategy from the get go. " But in that way, you are only seeing from the perspective of the lore of the game only (I think?). Besides being very relative, I do not think that's the correct way to view the situation. That way you are also disregarding that different types of players will play it. And even agreeing to disagree here, I can point out some inconsistencies (seeing from the lore side). As for example, the fact that an Elite 4 continues to use attacks to which my Pokémon is immune to continuously (if I'm using a Zoroark strategy). A veteran player can keep finding a Elite 4 challenge easy (is it because they have become a Master?), and what about the champion (like Diantha)? There's also the point that nowadays, there is not even that supposed difference that should exist between the first and last gym (regarding AI, and other limitations the NPCs have). But as I said, I don't think that's the correct way to view the situation, I think we should see it as players, but we can agree to disagree here.

Not really. Did you have a Pidgey/Pidgeotto? What about a Zubat? Whether intentionally or not, you placed that limitation on yourself to only face Bugsy with a Bayleef. Therefore, you placed that restriction on yourself. Your reasons for not using the options the game provides you is irrelevant, the bigger point being is that you rejected these options for the sake of having more of a challenge.

What I mean is that levels alone do not make that much of a difference to the point of completely overriding the challenge. Yes, I was at an elemental disadvantage too. But with a good moveset, the gym leaders could also be able to hit super effective moves and so on. This is the point I'm trying to adress.

You said that anything other than hitting the A button continuously would be a satisfactory challenge. I'm still doing nothing but hitting the A button for x seconds to demolish (insert Gym Leader here) even with team preparation, so that's not exactly true.

I see a difference between only going to the gym and pressing A continuously and between preparing a team first and then going to the gym and pressing A continuously. And I also see a difference between just pressing A continuously during the battle (with literally the highest power movement you have) and between pressing A continuously on specific movements (to be super effective), or maybe even following a strategy you've previously worked out. But we can agree to disagree here.

"That much of an advantage" is still an advantage. What separates Battle Facility matches from Gyms is that I don't know what Pokemon any given AI would have (aside from perhaps the battle facility leaders, I believe) in a Battle Facility. In a Gym Battle I already have an idea of what type the Gym Leader is going to use simply by walking into the Gym so by definition giving me all the time in the world to prepare my team.

If I'm understanding correctly, you argue that the need to prepare in the first place is evident of a challenge. But I see things differently, and it's with an asterisk. If you're given time to prepare with knowledge of what the opponent will bring, that in itself means by default, even without knowing the kind of items or movesets that the AI would have, that by being given the opportunity to counterteam the Gym Leader, whatever challenge that would have initially been present is significantly reduced.

It's pretty clear we don't see eye to eye on this point either so let's just agree to disagree here.

Yeah, I think so, I agree to disagree.

I apologise but my biggest peeve is people making broad assumptions about me so I'd rather we leave that out entirely.

Sometimes it happens of sides being misinterpreted, I don't think anyone is trying to make assumptions. But yes, we should leave assumptions (even assumptions about others making assumptions) aside, they do not add anything to the discussion, I agree.

I already addressed this point up above in my initial four paragraph explanation, but I'll do my best to re-word it for clarification.

You are misinterpreting my position, to a point.

I don't personally believe one-sided difficulties are the way to go in Pokemon games. The thing is, by attempting to appeal to every Pokemon player ever, Game Freak has essentially restricted themselves in what they could do. I already mentioned that in theory they could do whatever they want, and your position seems to be that, because they can have a number of possibilities to adjust harder difficulties, that my claim of Game Freak not having breathing room doesn't have ground. But it's not really on a technical sense of things, it just flat-out wouldn't make sense for them to introduce difficulty modes because a large part of Pokemon is having easy and difficult elements to appeal to large group of playerbases. Incremental levels already wouldn't work as some sort of hard mode difficulty because that's something that they've already done and players have yearned for more, so they gave more of an incremental level difference.

Okay, really, as you said, it's a point we've discussed above. So we can agree to disagree.

Really though, I kind of wonder what the outcome would be if Game Freak removed Challenge Mode altogether but still kept the mechanics of it. If B2W2's standard playthrough was just that the Gym Leaders/Elite Four were 1-5 levels higher than normal with slightly higher intelligence, would some players still argue for a difficulty mode entirely?

It is a good question. But look, if Elite 4 and the champion were like those of B2W2 challenge mode, beginners could be stuck in that part of the game. That would not be cool. Like I said, I don't think we should see things like that, so we can agree to disagree.

I know it's not the only example you gave, did you forget I agreed with you on some of them? But I'm addressing this point in particular because it doesn't make sense to me in the grand scheme of things but I also recognize that, again, you see difficulty in a different scope that I do and you would like that to encompass caves/forests, as well. Personally, Pokemon caves and forests have never particularly been super long and NPC-assisted healing is only a thing in very specific plot-instances of the game, so I'd argue those instances wouldn't even matter if the NPC was there or not.

And yes, I have a finite use of items, but I can buy them in bulk to almost negate that concern. Trainer Battles on their own are not so challenging that I can't Amulet Coin through everything (even with one of your proposals which is reduced earnings), buy a bunch of Super Potions and use them conservatively that way.

Yeah, we can agree to disagree on the former. About the later, to get more money you need to do more things. It spins, and since we're talking about Pokémon, of course it ends going up to grinding.

I've made statements that you disagree with. If something I've said is factually incorrect, then, it rests on your shoulders to prove to me that I am factually incorrect. I would think that I'm the sort of person that would correct my stance immediately if something I said was objectively false, but since this is a matter of debating opinions and perspectives and not a matter of debating facts, no one side can claim to be objectively correct over the other.

I will ignore personal attack attempts, because I understand that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion's suject, so I will not respond to that. I will answer the quoted part.

Focusing on the two specific statements that were the ones that leads to the previously mentioned part (where I was not even responding to you), I've said several times why they aren't true. They were:

This is where we agree to disagree. It really doesn't matter how intelligent the AI is if the player is 10 levels over. It really doesn't matter how intelligent the AI is when the AI has 3-4 Pokemon and the player has a full team. The point being: if the player has an inherent advantage, there is no actual challenge. Ergo, there is no "difficulty" unless you handicap yourself.

It actually matters how intellinget the AI is, even if the player is 10 levels over. And only because the player has an inherent advantage (that could be a numerical advantage, an elemental advantage, or whatever) does not necessarly mean there will be no actual challenge. I've already said all the reasons for that (and I showed you examples), and I don't feel like repeating them.

I have already tried to show you why those statements are factually incorrect, sorry but I will not do it again. Of course, if you try to relativize everything, we will never get anywhere in a discussion, since at some degree, everything can be relativized, even science.

"I've made statements that you disagree with." is just a way to say "that's just your opinion", even though I am not even uttering an opinion properly, but just trying to show you why the statement is refutable.

" - That does not work that way. It's a fallacy. It's wrong. Here's the logical explanation behind and some examples.
- Well, that's just your opinion. This is my opinion. You just disagree with. "
 
Last edited:

IncineROAR

Darth Ignis
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
2,245
Reaction score
1,916
Now I'm just talking to the mass, Ice type moves are still probably the most effective against Dragon, considering a good number of them are Dragon / Flying or Flying / Dragon, which is a 4x weakness. Then there is Garchomp/Gabite/Gibble that would have a 4x weakness to Ice due to Dragon / Ground typing (Vibrava and Flygon also have the 4x weakness to Ice due to Ground / Dragon typing).

So to put my post on topic, I hope there are more creative combinations of Dragon and other types in SwSh. Drampa was a welcome experiment, and Turtonator was a fun but useless (for me) Pokemon to have in the game. And because Galar is based on the UK, I really want to see some dragons that are inspired by Medieval lore.
 

Minya_Nouvelle

Excited for Reptiles
Joined
Nov 7, 2017
Messages
1,141
Reaction score
2,529
It looks like Lana is going to hook a Kyogre after all. Since this originally was just a joke, does this give the Bug type Eevee anymore possibility of happening?
 

colours

ꜰʟᴏᴡᴇʀ ꜰɪᴇʟᴅꜱ ❀
Joined
Oct 9, 2011
Messages
4,200
Reaction score
3,440
Pronouns
  1. She/Her
So to put my post on topic, I hope there are more creative combinations of Dragon and other types in SwSh. Drampa was a welcome experiment, and Turtonator was a fun but useless (for me) Pokemon to have in the game. And because Galar is based on the UK, I really want to see some dragons that are inspired by Medieval lore.

Game Freak just needs to make a better Dragon/Fire Pokemon tbh ;_;
 

Poke Dragon

Looking for a way to be whole again.
Joined
Apr 30, 2018
Messages
4,069
Reaction score
7,099
I really hope we do get a Dragon/Bug-type this generation, if Normal can be combined with Dark, then can Dragon be combined with Bug. Also, the reason why there are only two permanent Pokemon with Dragon/Fire is because most Dragon-types can use Fire moves.
 
Last edited:

Knightwolf09

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 9, 2016
Messages
4,377
Reaction score
7,399
It looks like Lana is going to hook a Kyogre after all. Since this originally was just a joke, does this give the Bug type Eevee anymore possibility of happening?
Pretty sure when Lana tells the tale of what happened, nobody will believe her cause of the lie she told before. Lana cried Lycanroc
 

IncineROAR

Darth Ignis
Joined
Jul 19, 2015
Messages
2,245
Reaction score
1,916
Game Freak just needs to make a better Dragon/Fire Pokemon tbh ;_;

Preferably one that isn't a legendary / mythical. Reshiram is one of my more favorite legendaries but the fact its legendary kind of makes me feel guilty for using in on my teams in the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom