Rivals

[Sweet Serenity]

The personality type of the rivals never really mattered much to me. I only care about the rivals having well-written personalities instead. Personally, I never considered Blue to be that much of a jerk. Instead, I always considered Blue to be a friendly rival that simply took pleasure in teasing you and gloating about how much better he is. I'm sure many people had friends similar to that when they were kids. I know I did and still do, in fact. Silver, on the other hand, was definitely a jerk. I enjoyed the rivalry from both Blue and Silver. I also don't understand how some people don't consider Silver to be a rival. While the aspect of his rivalry wasn't based on him directly competing with you to complete the PokéDex and challenge the gyms specifically like Blue, his way of competing with you was based upon how trainers should treat their Pokémon. Your character was all about treating Pokémon with love, care, and respect, whereas Silver only seemed to value strong Pokémon and use them as similar to tools of war to achieve his own selfish ends. The dialog after each battle with Silver hints towards conflict based upon you two's differing ideals.

Whenever he encountered you, his main goal was always to prove that you were weak based upon his belief that raising Pokémon strictly to be strong is the better way to train and the player's ideal was to prove him wrong. This is definitely a form of rivalry, no doubt. I liked the "rivalry" between Brendan and May because it didn't really feel like a rivalry, but rather a budding romance in a childish way, something that we barely, if ever see in Pokémon. I also never saw Wally as a rival either. Instead, I mostly viewed Wally as someone that you're mentoring to become stronger. As for gen 4, I also considered Barry a rival as well because he was similar to Blue, but didn't tease you as much as Blue did. I enjoyed battling him because he had very strong Pokémon for the most part, especially near the end. I loved what they did with gen 5's rivals because they were also your best childhood friends. I really enjoyed that style of rivalry because it felt like you were playing Pokémon and going on an adventure with your friends instead of playing completely alone.

In Pokémon Black 2/White 2, I also loved what they did with Hugh because his style of "rivalry" was unique in that he felt more like your tag team partner rather than someone that directly wanted to compete with you. When he did battle you, it was mainly to test you to see if you were ready for whatever challenge you'd face. He came off as a good friend or a big brother or sorts not only to his actual little sister he was fighting for, but also to you, which I loved. Generation six basically took what gen 5 did with their rivals and upgraded it with more friends. It might be an unpopular opinion, but I actually loved this style of rivalry. I just really enjoyed being part of a friend circle when I went on my adventure and I didn't feel like I was playing the game alone. The game also had cute interactions with your friends without being too cutscene heavy as well. Gen 7's rivalry style as good as well because it was practically the same as gen 5 in my opinion. However, I have an issue with Hau.

Despite the fact that I love Hau and think he is a good character, the way his character was written made me feel bad for beating him. I shouldn't have to feel that way when I defeat my rival. If anything, I should feel good about it. With the addition of Gladion, they went back to the old-school style rivalry again, similar to Silver, which I enjoyed. Gen 8 was pretty similar, mainly with Hop. While I did like Hop, although not as much as Hau, I also felt sorry for him every time I beat him or whenever someone else defeated him. I think Blue probably might be the best style of rival in this regard, as I see nothing wrong with having an actual friend that likes to gloat and tease you every now and then so you can feel good about beating him when you do. However, what I did like about gen 8 was how they tried to implement an old-school style rivalry again with Bede, whom I thought was more similar to Silver than anybody in terms of personality. It felt good to beat him and in my opinion, he felt more like a villain than Team Yell or Rose. Therefore, my answer is simple, if the rivals make for good characters, whether they're jerks or friendly, then I'm all for it.

 

[Duck]

I'm just going to quote this to make sure we are on the same page with my translation:

"If the Pokemon Company created a character and said its the main characters rival, we shouldn't believe that because it's not sensible."

That's just dumb. If I made a game and I said "This is your rival " and you told me it wasn't, I would laugh at you and thank you for your creative input and move on to the next topic. Lol

We're not on the same page, because that's not what I said.

What I did say (or at the very least, tried to say) was:
"Just because someone in a position of authority said X, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a sensible read on the situation."

To give an example, if someone made a game that has a character that presents as feminine, goes by female pronouns, uses a feminine name and then they said "This is your brother", people would, by and large, think something was wrong.

The author could be right - the character could be a closeted trans man - but unless there was some other kind of evidence in the text, most people would read the character as a (cis) woman and wouldn't agree with the author, possibly even criticizing them for queer baiting, as it has happened in the past with different media forms (even if not necessarily with transness).

I even expanded on my point the very next line when I said:

Especially in a situation like this where "rival" has many possible different meanings and "designated guy you beat a lot" (the one usage that would make Silver's designation sensible) isn't really an interesting one.

Emphasis mine.

Which is the crux of the matter, you're using rival to mean "designated guy you beat a lot" while I (and Corveone, from what I've gathered, although I could be wrong) are using rival in the sense you'd call someone a rival in real life or while doing an analysis of other forms of media: someone you have a longstanding (usually friendly) competition.

And that's why I don't think Silver is a rival in the sense that people use the word "rival" in real life - which is (at least in my opinion) a more interesting definition of rival. That's not to say that rival as "designated guy you beat a lot" isn't a perfectly valid definition, but it wasn't the definition that Corveone was using, nor the definition that I was using.

And if you use your definition to counter what we're saying, you're not engaging with what we're saying.

If you want, feel free to discuss why the definition I'm using isn't an interesting definition to analyze characters, I'd love to have that discussion! But just saying "This is the only good definition because it's the official definition" isn't really an argument, and while it's your prerogative, it doesn't really make for interesting discussion.

The bigger question I have is why does he have to be stuck to such STRICT rules and criteria to be a rival? In fact, among all pokemon rivals, what makes Silver (and N) so UNIQUE is that fact that they actually had some DARKNESS to their story. They don't follow the conventional rules and constructs, but that doesn't make them any less rivals.

[...]

It's cool if you're not a Silver fan, but to say he's not a rival just because he's not like blue or may (doesn't may want to be a researcher not a champion?) Is crazy. When I played gen 2, the ONLY rival was Blue. So how come Silver is automatically not a rival all of a sudden?

I never said that I'm not a Silver fan, nor would I even say that the definition I'm using is particularly strict or unreasonable (seeing that it's how people normally use the word outside of Pokémon, I guess).

I even complimented Silver before. I guess you're thinking that I'm not a fan because I said he had a "decent story arc" instead of something more glowing?

The story arc isn't great because he doesn't have more dialog and screen time. I quite like the concept of it (or of N's for that matter, who has one of the best story arcs in Pokémon to date). But hardware limitations back in the day meant that you had less story / less space for one character arc, so that's why I wouldn't say it's great by today's standards.

That's it, it has nothing to do with me being a fan of Silver or not. In fact, if anything, I'd say I like him more than May / Brendan and would consider Bede (which I would class as a rival by my definition) to have a strictly inferior story arc than Silver, despite being made a whole 20 years later. Same thing about Blue.

There's nothing wrong with not being a rival (by my definition). It doesn't make the character any lesser (and in fact, I would rank some non-rival, but recurring, characters above a bunch of rival characters), it just means that they have a different dynamic than "(possibly friendly) longstanding competition" with the player. That's not inherently good or bad, although it's usually positive because it's just different than the usual.

And last but not least, please don't double post!

 

[bez850]

We're not on the same page, because that's not what I said.

What I did say (or at the very least, tried to say) was:
"Just because someone in a position of authority said X, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily a sensible read on the situation."

To give an example, if someone made a game that has a character that presents as feminine, goes by female pronouns, uses a feminine name and then they said "This is your brother", people would, by and large, think something was wrong.

The author could be right - the character could be a closeted trans man - but unless there was some other kind of evidence in the text, most people would read the character as a (cis) woman and wouldn't agree with the author, possibly even criticizing them for queer baiting, as it has happened in the past with different media forms (even if not necessarily with transness).

I even expanded on my point the very next line when I said:

Emphasis mine.

Which is the crux of the matter, you're using rival to mean "designated guy you beat a lot" while I (and Corveone, from what I've gathered, although I could be wrong) are using rival in the sense you'd call someone a rival in real life or while doing an analysis of other forms of media: someone you have a longstanding (usually friendly) competition.

And that's why I don't think Silver is a rival in the sense that people use the word "rival" in real life - which is (at least in my opinion) a more interesting definition of rival. That's not to say that rival as "designated guy you beat a lot" isn't a perfectly valid definition, but it wasn't the definition that Corveone was using, nor the definition that I was using.

And if you use your definition to counter what we're saying, you're not engaging with what we're saying.

If you want, feel free to discuss why the definition I'm using isn't an interesting definition to analyze characters, I'd love to have that discussion! But just saying "This is the only good definition because it's the official definition" isn't really an argument, and while it's your prerogative, it doesn't really make for interesting discussion.



I never said that I'm not a Silver fan, nor would I even say that the definition I'm using is particularly strict or unreasonable (seeing that it's how people normally use the word outside of Pokémon, I guess).

I even complimented Silver before. I guess you're thinking that I'm not a fan because I said he had a "decent story arc" instead of something more glowing?

The story arc isn't great because he doesn't have more dialog and screen time. I quite like the concept of it (or of N's for that matter, who has one of the best story arcs in Pokémon to date). But hardware limitations back in the day meant that you had less story / less space for one character arc, so that's why I wouldn't say it's great by today's standards.

That's it, it has nothing to do with me being a fan of Silver or not. In fact, if anything, I'd say I like him more than May / Brendan and would consider Bede (which I would class as a rival by my definition) to have a strictly inferior story arc than Silver, despite being made a whole 20 years later. Same thing about Blue.

There's nothing wrong with not being a rival (by my definition). It doesn't make the character any lesser (and in fact, I would rank some non-rival, but recurring, characters above a bunch of rival characters), it just means that they have a different dynamic than "(possibly friendly) longstanding competition" with the player. That's not inherently good or bad, although it's usually positive because it's just different than the usual.

And last but not least, please don't double post!

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree. To me, when the game designers created him as the rival, he is the rival. When you defeat him for the first time he says "I'm going to be the greatest pokemon trainer."

To me, that line already eliminates one of the talking points both you and Corveone mentioned, as he is not competing against the player. Yes, he always was. Maybe not in a traditional gym challenge, but to be the greatest pokemon trainer. And due to the commonality of where their pokemon originated from, and Silvers actual backstory he is a rival.

I would also like to point out that I'm not saying Silver is just the guy you beat up a lot. You've asserted twice that I was saying that when I was not. I provided the actual DEFINITION of a rival. And now, through some of his actual text and actions, have connected the definition to the character.

I guess I'm just lost on what it is you are saying a rival is. In the real world your rivals are often nuisances or obstacles. Every rival I've ever had I've never been friends with (not saying there isn't friendly rivalry, just that it's not as common as animosity) And, in fact, without pokemon in my life I probably never would have considered my peers or competition "rivals" considering it's really not that commonly used a term outside of sports.

Rivalries in sports, one of the most common uses of the word, are often filled with hatred in the most successful of circles. And that's just a fact.

I've said my two cents, I respect yours, I'm hoping out of this one, have a wonderful rest of your evening!!!!

 

[Megan]

Silver is a rival in the gameplay sense while narrative-wise he acts completely independent from the player and just happens to constantly bump into them. He's basically just passively assuming the role of a rival.

I think I like the more modern approach: instead of just a nice or just a rude rival you get both. And to make it even better: they are allowed to grow as characters. It's something they've been doing since gen 7 and I won't mind if they keep it for the time being.

 

[Corveone]

Do you compete directly against that person in game on more than a hand full of occasions?

Is it mandatory to the story?

Do the player, and silver have conflicting ideology?

Attempt to get in each other's way/thwart/block a path?

Are we defining a rival, or an antagonist?

Silver isn't mandatory to the story. Nothing he does is actually necessary to make the plot move forward. This applies to a lot of Pokémon characters actually, which do serve a gameplay purpose but plot-wise you could perfectly tell the story without them.

Rivals don't necessarily have a conflicting ideology with the player character (Antagonists do). Look at the Alola or Hoenn rivals for example, zero conflict between them and the protagonist. Some rivals (Hop) just have a conflict with themselves.

Villain bosses/admins like Giovanni, Guzma, etc. check your boxes. They get in your way, are necessary for the story, have goals conflicting with the protagonist's, and you have to battle them several times, but as far as I know aren't considered rivals.

Pokémon is a franchise aimed towards kids, it leans on stereotypical tags to keep things flat and simple. "This is your rival", "this is a legendary", "this with the silly uniform is a bad guy", etc. But things aren't allways so simple, which is why people sometimes question those tags.

Battling and wanting to become stronger is what normally every trainer wants. But just like some teenager who barely started playing Tennis won't become a rival to Roger Federer (because to be rivals they have to be competitors playing on the same field) the rival in Pokémon games is your equal, another trainer in your same situation, an official competitor who got their trainer license and Pokédex just like the player, and aims to take on the region's challenge and become the new champion as well.

Gameplay-wise, Silver forcibly takes the rival role. Plot-wise, he serves a different purpose. And that's not criticism, that's precisely what I think he's more interesting than having the same rival cliché in every game.

And Mewtwo is a legendary pokemon. The second definition of legendary is "to be remarkable enough to become famous". By definition Mewtwo and Silver fits the definition of the words legendary and rival.

Who supposedly even knew Mewtwo existed in the Kanto lore, besides Team Rocket higher-ups and the bunch of scientists that created it? How could it be famous if it was one of the less known and the latest discovered Pokémon in the context of the game.

Ho-Oh, Kyogre, Dialga, etc. Those are actual legendary Pokémon, which existed in ancient times, did something important in their respective regions back then, then vanished. Stories about their feats where passed down from generation to generation, monuments were raised in their names, and so they became legends. Mewtwo is just labelled 'legendary' for being a unique specimen Pokémon with superior stats.

 

[bez850]

A rival doesnt have to make the story move forward, yet Silver is littered through out it and the NPCs dialogue through out the game?

I'm just not really understanding your position on the matter, nor do I understand the stretching being done to separate him from being a rival. Nothing anyone has said has made him not a rival, and then it became he's a game play rival and not a story rival? That's a bit all over for me.

Maybe I never understood the debate to begin with! 😆

"Remarkable enough to become famous"

It doesn't matter who knew about him at that point. That's not the point. He fit the definition, to "a T"!

I already said I'm hoping off this debate, have a blessed day Corveone!

 

[KalloFox34]

I prefer when they're more in the middle of "rude" or "friendly". Barry and Hugh kind of hit the sweet spot; they're neither total pushovers nor obnoxious jerks.

I like having multiple rivals, but I think three (i.e. what SS did) is enough. I felt Kalos had too many.

I really like the freedom of being able to name my rivals, and I wish later generations would give me that freedom (especially since they stopped letting us do that around the same time character limits were raised from 7 to 12 on human characters). BDSP did not disappoint in that regard.

I like it when the games make an effort to explain what happens with the character you didn't pick.

And as for Wally, I consider him a rival, albeit only a minor one.