• 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

In my case, I'm starting to feel some hype backlash towards Cynthia. I used to like her just fine because she was the Champion that gave me the most trouble in my solo runs pre-Kukui/Hau, but some... let's say... fanatics of her do creep me out.

And no, it's not the perv guys, it's the people that say that using a game mechanic to defeat her in the anime is a deus ex machina.
 
Last edited:
In my case, I'm starting to feel some hype backlash towards Cynthia. I used to like her just fine because she was the Champion that gave me the most trouble in my solo ruins pre-Kukui/Hau, but some... let's say... fanatics of her do creep me out.

And no, it's not the perv guys, it's the people that say that using a game mechanic to defeat her in the anime is a deus ex machina.

As you said, BDSP Cynthia is certainly the toughest champion in the franchise, while her Platinum version isn't exactly easy either, which contrasts with other hypeds champions, like Leon and Lance.

So, it seems reasonable to me that Cynthia's fans, and she has many, would be upset, for example, if Ash defeats her but loses to Leon.

After all, Cynthia is the major womanly powerhouse in the franchise, which is why many fans see her as their representative whether in the games or in the anime, a fact that I don't think happens with the other Champions.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but the problem is they overhype her, to the point they paint her as some invincible goddess that can't do no wrong. I know the other two female champions do have issues (Diantha due to being borderline the easiest champion and Iris due to the anime), but sometimes it goes to extremes. Like I mentioned, calling something like Dynamax a deus ex machina when it's something that is already there, is common as dirt, and because apparently using something like that is a sign of weakness, because God forbid using the resources available and mastering them is a sin.
 
Last edited:
I do appreciate GF for making XY. It's the first pair of games for finally biting the proverbial bullet and being the first to be actually based on a region overseas. And for those who ask "What about BW?", I reply that Earthbound did fictional USA and NYC way better with Eagleland and Fourside. Unova, esp Castelia just looks kinda generic in comparison.

Also, I think some of the dislike for the 3D graphics in 3DS is overblown. For one, the Orre games are only good with graphics because they're on GC and Wii. A lot of games in the 3DS have not very good graphics, I reckon, not just Pokemon. Just look at how cartoonish Persona Q looked, especially considering those mainline games have way better graphics. Apparently their graphical depictions were that because of the lack of good specs compared to the PS (Vita). And Hyrule Warriors, the one game that I played which does have better graphics, has significant performance issues such as the lack of enemies appearing on the screen at any one time.
 
Last edited:
I do appreciate GF for making XY. It's the first pair of games for finally biting the proverbial bullet and being the first to be actually based on a region overseas. And for those who ask "What about BW?", I reply that Earthbound did fictional USA and NYC way better with Eagleland and Fourside. Unova, esp Castelia just looks kinda generic in comparison.

Also, I think some of the dislike for the 3D graphics in 3DS is overblown. For one, the Orre games are only good with graphics because they're on GC and Wii. A lot of games in the 3DS have not very good graphics, I reckon, not just Pokemon. Just look at how cartoonish Persona Q looked, especially considering those mainline games have way better graphics. Apparently their graphical depictions were that because of the lack of good specs compared to the PS (Vita).
Who could forget about the true to real life desert in the middle of New York City?
 
In hindsight, I will say that the Orre games look and feel weird, like they don't fit anywhere. I think it's because I feel that the human and Pokémon design kinda clash there. It's like they belong to two different franchises.
 
People kinda overhype starters in general. For example, choosing between Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle has memes about it being "the most important choice ever." They're implicitly treated like required party members. And in response to how DP/BDSP players feel feel "forced" to pick Chimchar because the only other Fire-type is Ponyta: you don't have to use a Fire-type to beat the game. (That being said, it's a different story if you're genuinely fond of the Type.) There are other types you can use to counter Steel, Ice, Grass, and Bug-types.

They're overhyped enough that I'm often compelled to just play through the game without one. I basically "retconned" my starters to be Magnemite in White 2, Marill in Alpha Sapphire, Slowpoke in Ultra Sun, and Pumpkaboo in Shield.
 
Last edited:
I hated all the Unova starters initially and never had an emboar because of it.

Also, objectmons are cool, as are humanoid mons. I want a new gen that's only new mons (not counting regional variants) are objectmons and humanoids.
 
And in response to how DP/BDSP players feel feel "forced" to pick Chimchar because the only other Fire-type is Ponyta: you don't have to use a Fire-type to beat the game.
BDSP players aren't even remotely forced to pick Chimchar at all, since the Underground has you covered for alternate options, I was quick to grab that Houndoom I wanted for this run. Heck, Ponyta and Rapidash are not even that bad for Gen 4 playthroughs, yet this push for Chimchar because "the only other Fire-type is Ponyta" seems to be implying they're completely worthless.

As someone who knowingly picked a Ponyta in Platinum, when there were other options, because I wished to see what the big deal was, and subsequently made that Rapidash a veritable force in the Battle Frontier who has earned its spot in my party several times over, this has not only been bothering me but also has harmed my opinion of the Chimchar line by proxy.

Better my worthy Torterra and Rapidash that any Infernape, I say.

They're overhyped enough that I'm often compelled to just play through the game without one. I basically "retconned" my starters to be Magnemite in White 2, Marill in Alpha Sapphire, Slowpoke in Ultra Sun, and Pumpkaboo in Shield.
I felt that when I finally picked up Shield. I don't normally do this but for the very first time, I didn't want or care for any of its starters (it's the least interested I've ever been in a starter trio) and was quick to retire Sobble for my first catch Oddish. That Vileplume ended up being invaluable for defeating Peony's pair of level 70 Pokémon with my four-mon team in the late 40s, no healing items, so I'd say it was a good pick.
 
Agreed. Trubbish is a good, stinky boy.
Going off of the two ear-like protrusions on the top of its head, and the Japanese use of "dust" to mean trash, Trubbish could even be called a literal dust bunny. I for one find that an adorable concept idea and it makes me like this little trashy boi a lot more.
 
Who could forget about the true to real life desert in the middle of New York City?
Eh, that's not the most unusual in the bigger scheme of things. You could say the same thing for Route 111 in Hoenn, Route 228 in Sinnoh, or Route 13 in Kalos, or the Wild Area right outside Hammerlocke in Galar.
 
Bipedal starters, while not without issues, offer benefits over the standard animal/monster designs we see in earlier Gens.
Wider range of motion (and expressiveness):
With the earlier designs present in Gens 1-2, a lot of the designs for the starters feel...very restricted. Not in terms of creativity (that's a whole other can of worms), but movement itself. For example, look at Charizard, a fan favorite. The arms and legs are too stubby to realistically do much useful. The wings are tiny in proportion to its body. The way the face is shaped, it's inherently harder to interpret the expression on its face. It's cutely chubby. There isn't really anything inherently wrong with this design, but since that range of movement is a lot shorter, you can't be as expressive in movement or emotion. And these same design flaws are also present in a lot of other earlier starters, like Typhlosion, Venusaur, Meganium, Blastoise, and many others.
Now let's compare this to another very popular fire starter (both meanings work here), Cinderace. It has a very visible face, with a somewhat human expression, so it's easier to see and interpret the emotion on its face. The long legs and (admittedly kind of short) arms allow it to have very articulated and complex movements, as one can see in the Pokémon camp and in batles. These two primary characteristics alter the way the player interprets this character, to the benefit of the design as a whole. Similar designs to this can also be seen in more recent Generations as well. Think of Incineroar, Chestnaught, even as far back as Infernape (this style of design is strangely prevalent in Fire types).

Marketability:
At the end of the day, Pokémon is more or less an advertisement to buy merch. (I'm wearing a delightful t-shirt with a bunch of desert-based Pokémon on it right now [not actually officially licensed]). And it is easier to sell something with a lot of personality than not. The "animal" designs of earlier Generations are better at selling the idea that these are Pocket Monsters, but the bipedal designs of recent ones are better at selling the product to a new audience unfamiliar with Pokémon.

Also, I just think it's funny that people get so angry thinking that furries work as Gamefreak's character designers.
 
Does anyone think it's funny that while Giratina is supposed to be the Pokemon world equivalent of the Devil, in the Mystery Dungeon games, Darkrai is the Pokemon world equivalent of the devil instead? Conversely, Darkrai is supposed to be a much more benevolent creature despite its sinister appearance, while Giratina in the Mystery Dungeon games is simply just a minor boss?
 
Not really. Until Legends came Giratina never did anything, with the closest thing to evil was being done by an illusion. On the other hand, Darkrai had a kid trapped in a nightmare, killed another (possibly by accident), was the final boss(?) in the second Ranger game and is a Dark-Type Pokémon (which in Japan is known as Evil-Type).

...I'm just starting to realize Darkrai is going through the same kind of things death gods in our mythologies suffer, as in, they are not evil, but pop culture tends to portray them as if they were (just look at Hades and to a lesser extend, Anubis).
 
...I'm just starting to realize Darkrai is going through the same kind of things death gods in our mythologies suffer, as in, they are not evil, but pop culture tends to portray them as if they were (just look at Hades and to a lesser extend, Anubis).
Which is pretty funny, because Darkrai isn't even a god of death; Yveltal is. Or at least it's the closest thing to one.
 
We need a demon pokemon. And no, not as a a legendary or mythical, or even pseudo-legendary.
 
Then why was Darkrai portrayed as being the Pokemon version of the Devil in the Mystery Dungeon games?
And by the way, does anyone ever blame the idea of creating "beautiful, feminine-looking humanoid or anthropomorphic" Pokemon on a particular angel Pokemon? Some of the earlier humanoid Pokemon looked very hideous (ie. Mr. Mime and especially Jynx).
 
Back
Top Bottom