• A new LGBTQ+ forum is now being trialed and there have been changes made to the Support and Advice forum. To read more about these updates, click here.
  • Hey Trainers! Be sure to check out Corsola Beach, our newest section on the forums, in partnership with our friends at Corsola Cove! At the Beach, you can discuss the competitive side of the games, post your favorite Pokemon memes, and connect with other Pokemon creators!
  • 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.

Your controversial opinions

I will never understand why some gym leaders did not have Johto pokemon on their teams during the first campaign. Falkner not having Hoot-hoot, Morty not having Misdreavus, and Chuck not having Hitmontop on their teams. Especially in HGSS when they improved on most of the game.

That's another major gripe I've had with the Johto Gym Leaders, which also ties into my "lack of Johto Mons in Johto" bit. Why in blazes did half of the Gym Leaders not have a single Johto Mon on their teams baffles me. Falkner, Bugsy, Morty, and Chuck all had only Kanto Mons as their teams. And the teams that did have a Johto Mon only had one (Miltank, Steelix, Piloswine, and Kingdra, to be exact). That's poor game design. Then again, in Gen 2 the Johto Mons had terrible movepools compared to their Kantoian counterparts, making them pretty much useless. While Gen 4 fixed the movepool issue it didn't fix anything else, all because it wanted to pander to nostalgia. Really, this is another reason why I feel any Johto game, be it Gen 2 or 4, sucks and doesn't deserve the high pedestal that fans put them on. Which, as I said in the original post, is something that I'm very concerned about with BDSP. Let's hope that's not the case otherwise BDSP will crash faster than Motoyasu's sanity post-Malty's betrayal.
 
My issue with Alola mainly comes from the pacing. The region is lovely, and, as you've pointed out, the characters and story are quite strong, but the games seemed to come to an end almost anti-climactically? Even with USUM, it seemed to still be an issue even with the post-game content. There's just something about those games I guess :unsure:

And I think my wanting of a "Pokemon Z" game just comes from the franchise conditioning me into expecting one lol. Not having that third title didn't necessarily hinder my enjoyment since I was fond of the initial games to begin with. That being said, I wouldn't say no to another Kalos game. :wynaut:

I actually really like the pacing in SM. I like how the main climax of the story occurs after all the Trials and Grand Trials are completed, and then once it's over you can head to the Pokemon League straight away. I wish more of the Pokemon games were structured like this. I also find that the battle against Nebby at the Altar, with the upbeat background music, is a nice way to "unwind" and have a bit of fun after the rather intense events in Ultra Space.

I did feel that USUM messed up the pacing somewhat, though. It uses the more conventional (and in my opinon, not very logical) Pokemon game structure, with the main storyline ending quite a long time before the Pokemon League. And the climax of the Necrozma storyline seems quite rushed - there's a frenzy of cutscenes and then suddenly it's all over, or at least that's how it felt to me.

Come to think of it, I would have liked to see Kalos get the B2W2 treatment, with a proper sequel (or perhaps a prequel). It's just the idea of enhanced versions, that only modify an existing story, that I'm not really a fan of.

This leads me onto another controversial opinion... even though I like the idea of games getting proper sequels, I actually think the storyline in B2W2 is quite lacklustre and generic. I admire the ambition, but not so much the execution. As someone who adored the story in BW, I felt quite let down by the sequels, even though the general gameplay was great.
 
Last edited:
This leads me onto another controversial opinion... even though I like the idea of games getting proper sequels, I actually think the storyline in B2W2 is quite lacklustre and generic. I admire the ambition, but not so much the execution. As someone who adored the story in BW, I felt quite let down by the sequels, even though the general gameplay was great.

On a similar note, I've actually been thinking lately that sequels as a general concept may not be all that worthwhile when it comes to Pokémon. I'm fond of B2W2's story developments, probably more so than you are, but I feel like it only worked because of the particular nature of the BW story - Team Plasma wanted to change the social fabric, and they built up a relatively successful movement, so there was a point in exploring the fallout of that. (And even then, I think some things could have been handled a bit better - I think Iris becoming the Champion is bewilderingly underdeveloped, for instance.) A sequel for SM probably could have worked fairly well too, and I think returning to Kanto 20+ years after RBY is an idea with a decent amount of potential. But most Pokémon games don't have the historic significance of the original setting, nor the story-driven nature of BW and SM, and without either of those qualities, I think that sequels would feel just as routine as your basic third versions. "Oh, a couple new features and areas. Oh, an upgraded Pokédex. Oh, a villain team revival. Oh, visual polish." Obviously with third versions, the less similarities there are, the better, but a third version is still what you'd basically be getting. In that regard, I think the SwSh route of "continuing" the journey for a year by injecting new content into the base, and then moving on to another region's game, is a more useful model.

Emerald and Platinum especially are already kind of like quasi-sequels, they just aren't honest about it. But like, the way Wallace replaces Steven in Emerald, with Steven becoming the post-game boss, scans like a sequel move. If they'd cut out the moving truck opening, and replaced Archie and Maxie with Matt and Tabitha as the main villains or something, it'd be a sequel. With Diamond & Pearl, you've got Cyrus swearing to try to carry out his plans again after he's defeated. What does the next game do? Show him doing exactly that, this time even correcting for his previous mistake of targeting only one of the dragons. Again, the only thing really keeping it from being a sequel is the fact that the NPCs undergo a collective memory wipe and don't mention Cyrus's previous antics. This sort of thing is precisely why in ORAS, you get the Delta Episode reframing some of the Emerald plot developments as a temporal extension of the story, as opposed to an alternate version of it, because it just makes more sense.
 
Last edited:
This leads me onto another controversial opinion... even though I like the idea of games getting proper sequels, I actually think the storyline in B2W2 is quite lacklustre and generic. I admire the ambition, but not so much the execution. As someone who adored the story in BW, I felt quite let down by the sequels, even though the general gameplay was great.

Well then... :sneaky:

But to be honest, I kind of agree? I think the strongest aspects of B2W2 are the expanded map and the greater diversity in Pokémon (ie earlier access to Gen I-IV 'mons). However, I would argue that the original story in BW had a more moving and satisfying conclusion. I also appreciate that ambition and thought that was put in the games, but I agree that it seemed like a step down from the previous in terms of story.
 
I actually really like the pacing in SM.
I have the controversial take of this: i think the pacing in SM is terrible. It's just this constant stream of cutscenes and loads of dialogue constantly interrupting the player that about haflway through i was exhausted, and unironically took a break and didn't played for several days. I honestly started to long for the times of Gen 1 where you would get big gaps of just battling trainers and catching pokemon with hardly, if any, cutscene or dialogue dumps interrupting me. Not to mention how long the intro is.

And this not me having ADHD or anything like and one of my favorite games of all time is Final Fantasy 6, a JRPG with plenty of cutscenes and dialogue. But the major difference there is that the time distribution between gameplay and cutscenes is far more balanced.
 
@Puddle
@Mr. MoonStone

Come to think of it, I don't think B2W2 having a weaker story is an unpopular opinion. At least, the sense I've always gotten from fandom is that "it's a sequel, so it's definitely better than a third version just doing the same thing as before," but I think most of the praise for B2W2 does go toward the new features and locations (which I suppose the "sequality," if you will, does play a part in, as it becomes possible to show temporal progress in areas from the original games, but ultimately that's still just a particular kind of polish), and the expanded Dex. Whereas the core plot is actually a lot more formulaic compared to the story of BW (with the exception of the Memory Link flashbacks, which fans tend to like).

Two very close friends of mine in the past, and this week my boyfriend, when they saw my Switch console for the first time, they wanted to play some stuff on it. Since I own only Zelda BotW and Pokémon Sword so far, I chose to show them Sword since it is more casual and easy to play than the complicated mechanics of BotW. But the problem is, the introduction and cutscenes are so freaking long that they lose their attention very soon before even getting the chance to play the game. My boyfriend, for example, who has no idea what Pokémon games are about, went with it until he chose Scorbunny and had that rivalry battle with Hop. But then another cutscene and then another one, he finally said he is not interested anymore.

I thought DS games could be better for starters. And of all the boxes I showed him (HeartGold, White, White 2, X, Alpha Sapphire, Sun and Ultra Moon), he chose Ultra Moon since its cover was more appealing to him. And obviously, same scenario again. I don't think he is curious about Pokémon games even the slightest anymore, although I've been bragging about it for months since we first met.

Pokémon probably just isn't for him altogether. All the main series games have essentially that same sort of beginning, some are just a bit better about it than others. Personally I'd say SwSh have one of the better-paced beginnings, so if that didn't work for them, I can't really imagine BW or HGSS faring much better.
 
I will never understand why some gym leaders did not have Johto pokemon on their teams during the first campaign. Falkner not having Hoot-hoot, Morty not having Misdreavus, and Chuck not having Hitmontop on their teams. Especially in HGSS when they improved on most of the game.

My controversial opinion here is that it makes a little more sense if you regard GSC as the intended endpoint of the series. The mentality of each new Gen showing off the species of that Gen really comes into play with Hoenn, and since then we've become very used to the notion of eternal successive instalments. Famously, GSC were intended to be the sequel and no further; I feel that the roster additions were meant to just flesh out the world that bit more as opposed to taking the lion's share of the spotlight. With this mentality, Scyther is still one of the most impressive Bug-types of the holistic Pokédex, and Gengar is still the reigning Ghost-type - we're not necessarily meant to draw a distinction between the old and the new.
 
I will never understand what went through Gamefreak's head (or if it was Nintendo's idea) to even consider ending the franchise after two games. You have arguably the most popular thing in video game media at the time (best selling game on the hottest handheld device), to the point you have an huge amount of people waiting with extreme anticipation for your sequel, but then you somehow decide to end it with the sequel. Obviously the idea was dropped, but just the fact the initial intent existed is ridiculous.

This is like if Myamoto decided to end Super Mario after Super Mario Bros 2.
 
I will never understand what went through Gamefreak's head (or if it was Nintendo's idea) to even consider ending the franchise after two games. You have arguably the most popular thing in video game media at the time, to the point you have an huge amount of people waiting with extreme anticipation for your sequel, but then you somehow decide to end it with the sequel. Obviously the idea was dropped, but just the fact the initial intent existed is ridiculous.

This is like if Myamoto decided to end Super Mario after Super Mario Bros 2.

Well, Pokémon was huge at the time... but I think most normal people wouldn't necessarily assume that they've hit upon a formula so successful that it will topple Disney in perpetuity.
 
My controversial opinion here is that it makes a little more sense if you regard GSC as the intended endpoint of the series. The mentality of each new Gen showing off the species of that Gen really comes into play with Hoenn, and since then we've become very used to the notion of eternal successive instalments. Famously, GSC were intended to be the sequel and no further; I feel that the roster additions were meant to just flesh out the world that bit more as opposed to taking the lion's share of the spotlight. With this mentality, Scyther is still one of the most impressive Bug-types of the holistic Pokédex, and Gengar is still the reigning Ghost-type - we're not necessarily meant to draw a distinction between the old and the new.

And then with HGSS, they probably saw themselves as walking the tightrope between making substantial revisions versus retaining the original experience, with the compromise they ultimately settle on being "we'll keep the original Gym rosters for the main story, but we'll go nuts for the post-game rematches." (Although Chuck's continued failure to pick up a Johtonian Fighting-type is still kinda funny.)

I'm not a huge fan of HGSS's conservatism, but for the above reason, the unchanged Gym rosters are one of the very lesser offenses, in my mind.
 
I will never understand what went through Gamefreak's head (or if it was Nintendo's idea) to even consider ending the franchise after two games. You have arguably the most popular thing in video game media at the time (best selling game on the hottest handheld device), to the point you have an huge amount of people waiting with extreme anticipation for your sequel, but then you somehow decide to end it with the sequel. Obviously the idea was dropped, but just the fact the initial intent existed is ridiculous.
In my opinion, I think it's because they thought it might have been a fad. I sincerely don't blame them.
 
Pokémon Mystery Dungeon (Even Gates to Infinity) are the best games story wise of the entire series.

Pokemon Ranger deserved a fourth game.

I like third versions.

Pokémon Go is the worst thing that happened to Pokémon
 
My controversial opinion here is that it makes a little more sense if you regard GSC as the intended endpoint of the series. The mentality of each new Gen showing off the species of that Gen really comes into play with Hoenn, and since then we've become very used to the notion of eternal successive instalments. Famously, GSC were intended to be the sequel and no further; I feel that the roster additions were meant to just flesh out the world that bit more as opposed to taking the lion's share of the spotlight. With this mentality, Scyther is still one of the most impressive Bug-types of the holistic Pokédex, and Gengar is still the reigning Ghost-type - we're not necessarily meant to draw a distinction between the old and the new.
Yes, for GSC. I agree you have a point.

But not for HGSS. Especially HGSS, when a lot of the praises were about how HGSS improved on GS (and added C elements). Surely they could have updated the gym rosters to at least include notable Johto pokemon.
 
Last edited:
This leads me onto another controversial opinion... even though I like the idea of games getting proper sequels, I actually think the storyline in B2W2 is quite lacklustre and generic. I admire the ambition, but not so much the execution. As someone who adored the story in BW, I felt quite let down by the sequels, even though the general gameplay was great.

I'm actually inclined to agree with you here.

I may be a avid Gen 5 fan, but I won't ignore its faults. BW was the superior half of the generation. Not only did it have the best plot, but it also had many subplots and hidden messages intertwined into it. Like what Adler was trying to convey to Cheren that a life's purpose isn't a desired goal, but what you do with your life, especially after you achieve said goal. While, yes, B2W2 did resolve some of those, like the futures of Cheren and Bianca, but the main plotline of the games were pretty much the same song and dance that most Pokemon games have. B2W2 selling point, I feel, is the vast amount of content it had, be it multiple side-quests, PWT, Memory Link, Join Avenue, expanded dex, etc, not so much its story. The story of B2W2 was a definite step down from BW's amazing story and its many hidden messages. The idea of sequels instead of cut-and-dry third versions is a rather good idea, especially if it wraps up a few plotlines or plot holes, but B2W2's execution was a bit lacking. Content-wise, it was overflowing, but the story was very much a misstep, as it felt more of the same as past games. So, yeah, I agree with you here.
 
Agreed with the first 3.

For the last one, my question is why?

Well it's controversial for something isn't it?

This is really really really really my personal opinion not based with facts but just on what I see

When Pokémon Go happened it made Pokémon a lot more popular than it already was and it atracted some casual crowd. Thanks to this we got the idea than catching Pokémon is more important than training, breeding... Other things. Things like Pokemon Let's Go and Pokemon Journeys happened.

I don't know how to explain it but for me Pokémon lost some of his magic there.

All of this is probably cause I hate Pokémon Go. I played it 1 month and it bored me to death. I don't like the concept and I don't like that this concept is beeing transfered into Videogames and the anime.

Again really personal and controversial opinion.
 
I have the controversial take of this: i think the pacing in SM is terrible. It's just this constant stream of cutscenes and loads of dialogue constantly interrupting the player that about haflway through i was exhausted, and unironically took a break and didn't played for several days. I honestly started to long for the times of Gen 1 where you would get big gaps of just battling trainers and catching pokemon with hardly, if any, cutscene or dialogue dumps interrupting me. Not to mention how long the intro is.

And this not me having ADHD or anything like and one of my favorite games of all time is Final Fantasy 6, a JRPG with plenty of cutscenes and dialogue. But the major difference there is that the time distribution between gameplay and cutscenes is far more balanced.

Oh, yes I agree with you about the cutscenes! I was thinking more about the order that events occur in. There's a good balance between the Island Challenge and Lillie's storyline. I like how the Aether Foundation segments happen in between exploring the islands, for example. And in Sun and Moon, I like how the climax happens in between the final Trial and the Pokemon League.

Kalos, Alola and Galar all suffer from too many cutscenes, but Alola especially. Large amounts of cutscenes never bother me the first time that I play a game, when I'm reading the dialogue for the first time, but it can be a bit of a nightmare for subsequent playthroughs.
 
Back
Top Bottom