Heroes don't always win

pkmin3033 · Dec 6, 2014

If it was a proper battle you could choose to win, then yes. I've seen the "unwinnable battle" scenario used in various JRPGs over the years, and I really am sick of it - it doesn't really serve any purpose other than to illustrate how weak you are at that point in time, and you KNOW you're going to be able to trash the offender eventually. Having a battle you could lose that would significantly impact the story, or a character you'd never be able to beat no matter how many times you challenged them, would be interesting. If it had a proper impact, rather than just something you could easily undo by winning later, or were expected to beat later, then yes. But it's a very old and tired JRPG cliche to have unwinnable battles, and I don't see the purpose it would serve in Pokemon.

Dedenne1 · Dec 6, 2014

I'd like just once in life for the bad guy to win and the good guy too lose. I would like to lose oh u failed now the world will change and u can go about ur daily ways haha. Even better would be u being the bad guy and winning! What's so bad about that?

Guardian · Dec 6, 2014

I wish this would happen so much. What's funny it that this way, you could make such a good post game.
I mean sure, you beat Elite four and now you're accomplished.
BORING

Would be better if you'd lose, and then have to do some other stuff that would make a completed gameplay. Even cliché stuff.

For instance, here's a wild idea.
You lose against E4, and decide to live in mountains and train ~~k I just realized it's exactly what happened to Red, I get it~~, and you hear TR or whoever wants to burn down a village and steal stuff, you kick their butts and save the village, and escape unseen. Silent hero.
Something like that?

Maharet · Dec 10, 2014

That's something that I'd like to see. We're all used to grind-win-rinse-repeat until our pokèmon enter the hall of fame, and if you don't grind enough, you lose and simply try again not much far from where you last were.
What I'd like more of a simple unwinnable fight, it's a hard fight that has certain consequences wheter you win it or not, or even some major fights that have little side endings (like a "what if" scenario) based on the outcome. The first example that comes to my mind is the fight with Ghetsis: hypotetically, they could have made it harder, and losing it would have shown you the consequences, with a little side-ending showing Ghetsis' rule over Unova and the impact on people and pokèmon, forced to live separately.
As for fights having consequences in-game, without having to force a mini-ending, I can only think about Ruby or Sapphire: losing to Maxie or Archie could have allowed them to control Groudon/Kyogre (even if only for some time before someone else intervened) and bringing major changes to the environment in Hoenn.
I know these aren't probably the greatest ideas, but I hope I could explain myself properly, I don't think doing such things is that impossible with the technology available to date. The possibility of losing, and paying the consequences of it could even make the theme of the games more mature.

Nagi · Dec 10, 2014

to be honest i'd much prefer to have an unwinnable battle in the beginning, after which we can get stronger and beat them up next time we meet. reminds me of Golden Sun, haha. an opponent that is and stays impossible to beat forever would just annoy me, i think. of course, losing a couple times for the plot to develop wouldn't be bad either.

alternatively, i'd love the opportunity to play a Pokémon game through the perspective of an evil team member; starting out as a grunt, becoming an admin, maybe turning on the whole organisation at some point because what they're doing isn't right (Pokémon Colosseum anyone?), or otherwise because you have other, greater plans?
... sorry, that doesn't really relate to the losing-battles thing anymore does it ( ´ ▽ ` )ゞ

Arc · Dec 11, 2014

Having scripted unwinnable battle is something I'm genuinely surprised Game Freak haven't experimented with yet. I mean, it doesn't impact that game in any meaningful way, but it can illustrate the strength of certain trainers more adequately than a blurb of text. Like, I'm supposed to believe Giovanni is the eighth Gym Leader and Team Rocket Boss, but he couldn't even beat the protagonist in any of the first two encounters? Come on, now.

Since someone mentioned Conquest, I'm also surprised that game didn't have a scripted battle as well. You would think that as the reigning Warlord, Nobunaga would be concerned that another Warlord is quickly gaining power and would at least try to stamp out this potential threat to his conquest (heh heh)? Seriously, I'm sure fighting Nobunaga and his Zekrom with an Eevee, would definitely instill some fear, haha.

│Medic│ · Dec 12, 2014

Things I wouldn't mind seeing implemented in the main games or side games:

Un-winnable, scripted battles
A battle reputation attribute of some sort that fluctuates in reference to, say, your win-loss ratio
Special events to be triggered or said by NPC's, depending upon your battle reputation
Skill-based gestures performed to help influence critical hit chances or to better your accuracy, lessening randomness (the touch pad comes to mind here)
Events with multiple outcomes, depending upon whether you win or lose
A tournament-based league challenge, with an Elite Four opportunity for the winner
Allowing Pokemon to retain more than four moves
A level cap of 200+

Meadow · Dec 12, 2014

Honestly, I'm against the idea of being forced to lose. Every player is different, and whether or not they lose should be up to their skills. That being said, it would be perfectly fine to throw in an important NPC who uses over-leveled Pokémon, but it should be a regular battle that allows the player to lose, rather than forcing them.

I believe that whenever we play a Pokémon game, we are playing as ourselves (at our own skill level), and our player character doesn't necessarily need the typical character development that other characters get. I mean, some beginners legitimately start off as prodigies, while others (like Ash) need more time to get better.

Cerberus87 · Dec 12, 2014

I think a better idea would be to make a rigged battle that could be beaten with skill. This way, only the best of the best (and the luckiest of the lucky, why not?) would win it and enjoy the prize.

Legobricks · Dec 20, 2014

R.F. said:
Ever played Lufia 2? There's a point early in the game where you encounter one of the main antagonists for the first time. You then fight this guy, but he's extremely powerfull. That is, of course, because you're supposed to lose the fight and the story progresses normally.
The important thing about that, though: if you grind your way up so you can beat him, you get a really really cool item which helps you immensely in the upcoming part of the story.

Instead of building battles into the game that you have to lose, it would be better seeing battles that you're supposed to lose, but you can still win and that rewards you in doing so.

That's a great way of doing it. The Reaper in the Persona games is similar, although it's an optional boss; interesting implementation, I think.

morrison · Dec 22, 2014

I agree, make have an effect. For example in FFVIII the player actually has to run from a droid machine monster in order to continue the game because it will always beat you otherwise. Like in rby when you lost to blue at different point it had an outcome on his final team. Also I dont like how every single lost fight ends in fainting .. even if it is just next doors neighbour. It could hjust go sadly you lost and make your way to the pokecenter.(also what i would like to cjange is that you get to the closest PC not the one you were at last.

bobandbill · Dec 23, 2014

Maharet said:
That's something that I'd like to see. We're all used to grind-win-rinse-repeat until our pokèmon enter the hall of fame, and if you don't grind enough, you lose and simply try again not much far from where you last were.
What I'd like more of a simple unwinnable fight, it's a hard fight that has certain consequences wheter you win it or not, or even some major fights that have little side endings (like a "what if" scenario) based on the outcome. The first example that comes to my mind is the fight with Ghetsis: hypotetically, they could have made it harder, and losing it would have shown you the consequences, with a little side-ending showing Ghetsis' rule over Unova and the impact on people and pokèmon, forced to live separately.
As for fights having consequences in-game, without having to force a mini-ending, I can only think about Ruby or Sapphire: losing to Maxie or Archie could have allowed them to control Groudon/Kyogre (even if only for some time before someone else intervened) and bringing major changes to the environment in Hoenn.
I know these aren't probably the greatest ideas, but I hope I could explain myself properly, I don't think doing such things is that impossible with the technology available to date. The possibility of losing, and paying the consequences of it could even make the theme of the games more mature.

I like this idea - instead of some battles result in teleportation to the nearest Pokemon centre, you get shown a bad ending.

I'm not the greatest fan of the force loss trope though being put in a mainstream Pokemon game. Conquest though:

Since someone mentioned Conquest, I'm also surprised that game didn't have a scripted battle as well. You would think that as the reigning Warlord, Nobunaga would be concerned that another Warlord is quickly gaining power and would at least try to stamp out this potential threat to his conquest (heh heh)? Seriously, I'm sure fighting Nobunaga and his Zekrom with an Eevee, would definitely instill some fear, haha.

This would make sense.

(I also read 'Warlord' as 'Wailord'. Nobunaga the reigning Wailord pfffft)

ike in rby when you lost to blue at different point it had an outcome on his final team. Also I dont like how every single lost fight ends in fainting .. even if it is just next doors neighbour.

Ah, a good point, I forgot that was the case. So hey, Game Freak have taken that into account... in one gen 1 game. :V

DyingWillFlareon · Jan 19, 2015

Shiny_Unown said:
The same for GSC. But there should be some battles where you cant win. Not just the possibility of losing.

I've never once lost to Silver so I can't say anything Johto-wise. .-.
It would be nice if there was a half way point; like losing to your rivals in a battle then being able to continue. But still beating the bad guys. Wins for the younger players, acceptable loses for te older ones. :3
Example:
Rival 1: let's battle!
A: you lose the battle
Rival 1: Wow that was a good battle! Say have you heard(random story plot generated line about the ledgendaries here).
B: You win the battle
Rival 1: Shoot....... Well I guess you win! What are tou doig out here? Searching for the ledgend? .... What?? You haven't heard?!(tells ledgend)

I'd be down with that. :3

Oh and there's a hack game I can't remember the name to(has Altaria on the front, starter is Poochyena) where one of the very first battles is a overleveled antagonist team battle.

Crady · Jan 20, 2015

なぎ said:
to be honest i'd much prefer to have an unwinnable battle in the beginning, after which we can get stronger and beat them up next time we meet. reminds me of Golden Sun, haha. an opponent that is and stays impossible to beat forever would just annoy me, i think. of course, losing a couple times for the plot to develop wouldn't be bad either.

alternatively, i'd love the opportunity to play a Pokémon game through the perspective of an evil team member; starting out as a grunt, becoming an admin, maybe turning on the whole organisation at some point because what they're doing isn't right (Pokémon Colosseum anyone?), or otherwise because you have other, greater plans?
... sorry, that doesn't really relate to the losing-battles thing anymore does it ( ´ ▽ ` )ゞ

This. I agree with this so much, they should do that in the newer remakes - making you lose on the first battle by default and the game makes you get stronger so you can beat them the next time.

Dedenne1 · Jan 20, 2015

Umm ya atleast have the bad guys win! Id love to actually play as the bad guys as once but i wouldnt mind losing for once i mean if we lose i think the story should continue except the bad guys would start winning it gets old if u lose and u black out and u gotta do the same thing...

Twilight-kun · Jan 26, 2015

I think you should be able to lose battle against Wild Pokémon, Rivals, Trainers, Gym Leaders, Villains, E4, Champions, etc and rather than white out, you simply return to the overworld and the winner gloats about it or offers encouragement before offering to heal your team and try again or simply walk away

Villains, of course would simply kick you out of the base and take your money

Maybe make it like the Mario 3 Airships and have them move their base of operations, so you have to hunt them down again?

Heroes don't always win

More options

pkmin3033

Guest

Dedenne1

[SPAN="FONT-SIZE:16.5PX; FONT-FAMILY: SATISFY; TEX

Guardian

Maharet

Nagi

Arc

[img]http://i.imgur.com/kieFJln.gif[/img]

│Medic│

Meadow

[span="font-family: Handlee; font-size: 15px; font

Cerberus87

Mega Houndoom, baby!

Legobricks

morrison

bobandbill

one more time

DyingWillFlareon

Burning Candle

Crady

It ain't even bright in here

Dedenne1

[SPAN="FONT-SIZE:16.5PX; FONT-FAMILY: SATISFY; TEX

Twilight-kun

Pokémon World Champion