Controversial pokemon opinions

- gen 1 still has the best open world experience out of the main series titles
- it also has the best leveling experience because you can beat it without grinding as long as you put a little bit of effort into diversifying your party
- people are way to obsessive with level numbers. They see their Pokemon's level being lower than the opponents they immediately believe they need to grind. That was definitely one of the contributing factors that turned the EXP Share into what it is today
- X-items exist to be used and should not be shunned
- gen 2's postgame is awful and the remakes didn't make it much better
- gen 4 heavily suffers from GF not knowing how to fill a 3D-ish world. As a result a lot of the routes and towns feel very empty with a lot of empty space/mindless grass patch spamming
- XY and SM+ are not as easy as people believe
- HMs were a good system badly implemented and with them now gone Pokemon really are just tools of war
 
~Generations IV, V, and VII have the most forgettable OSTs in the entire series. Generation VI has my favorite.
~I dislike that they made Galar (Britain) a "cold" region in Pokemon. Not because I don't want cold regions, but because Britain is really not cold IRL and now people think we need a tropical region to follow this "cold" region instead of a legitimately cold location being represented.
~No more tropical locations for a long time, please.
~Gen I nostalgia has been worn out and stomped all over. Stop forcing Gen I on us all of the time. Gen I Pokemon need to appear in games and in regional variants proportionately to any other generation and not even slightly any more.
~Generation VI games had the perfect difficulty balance.
~Following Pokemon as a feature is far less exciting than it should be. Especially because it's always the first Pokemon in your team, and not a set favorite Pokemon that you can choose.
~Pokemon Snap was fun for a little while when I was 11, but I have found it hard to come back to ever since, and the New Pokemon Snap does not do anything to improve this issue.
~I actually kinda enjoyed the characters and story of Sword/Shield.
~The 3D Pokemon models made for the mainline series are great.
~The open world of Pokemon Legends: Arceus is 100% the right direction for the Pokemon series to go and I'm very excited.
~The design of the ultra beasts are abysmal and I wouldn't be sad if they just never appeared ever again.
 
1) I did not enjoy gen V. A lot of the pokemon designs I loathed. The story and characters were very mundane. Couldnt get into it. It actually made me take a few years off pokemon.

2) Kind of carrying on from the previous one, but Gen IV were the last good games they produced. Based on pokemon designs and story.

3) I hate mimiyuki (whatever its stupid name is) and a few other pokemon that shouldn't even belong in the pokemon universe. Whoever came up with klefki should have been fired.

4) I genuinely hate Max Raid battles. I find them drawn out and tedious. And dynamaxing is like the Wish version of the Mega Evolutions. Its annoying how it is the only way to get certain pokemon in the DLC

5) I disliked the DLC for Sword and Shield. They were boring. Armour Isle basically only introduced one legendary and allowed you to play with old pokemon again because they didn't want to do all the work first time around.
Crown Tundra was horrible. Just made you chase old legendaries again and called it a plot.
The DLC could have been a massive opportunity to bring back an old villain/evil group and release more new pokemon.

6) This one isn't unpopular, but im gonna say it....
Stupid f****** fairy pokemon.
 
I just could never understand the complaints towards inanimate object creatures. It was never claimed that everything in the series must be an animal. I do think almost all the inanimate object designs are better than most of the designs that are simply basic animals.

Honestly, I would be interested to see the reaction to a new generation where practically every new creature that aren't the starters were inanimate objects, just to see how people would react. Of course, non animal starters would definitely not go well because I can't see that happening, but otherwise, if everything else was a weird object, granted it's actually creative and not just eyes on an item, then I would accept an entire generation of them with open arms.

Seriously, why exactly do people complain about inanimate object creatures?
 
Because they're put of place with the rest of the world and its lacking creativity. You have the likes of charizard, lapras, snorlax, skarmory and a whole bunch of others that could conceivably exist together then you get a set of car keys and an ice cream and chuck them in the mix. Im not saying they're all bad. Just most of them. Magnemite and litwick lines are good and aesthetically sound.

I reckon if they created a game entirely based on inanimate object pokemon, it would further kill the franchise.

Pokemon are Pocket Monsters. And animals can be easily associated with monsters. Not so much household objects. Thats why I also never like rotom.
 
AussieJimmy said:
Because they're put of place with the rest of the world and its lacking creativity.
Click to expand...

[PokeCommunity.com] Controversial pokemon opinions

After reading this post, I uhh... still don't really get it. It's not like there's a set rule that Pokemon have to be organic animals because they never were from the start. Yeah people can rip on Garbodor or Vanilluxe or Klefki all they want and it's not like their opinions are wrong, though it does bother me for people to specifically point fingers at these newer mons and give a pass to a lot of the ones in earlier generations. Grimer's, Magnemite's, and Voltorb's evolution lines are the first to come to mind. You mentioned Skarmory, and while I agree it is more conceivable as a real animal than something like Magnemite, I think it's a big stretch to say a bird plated in metal could conceivably exist as an animal itself.

Curious to hear more about your opinion on Magnemite and Litwick, and what makes them good, since I agree and think they fit well as Pokemon.

I agree a game entirely based on inanimate object Pokemon wouldn't be great, but it's more the lack of variety that would come from that rather than because inanimate object Pokemon are bad. I think it's cool the regions are themed around areas and we get Pokemon that fit them, but still get a massive variety. I think it'd only kill the franchise because of how other people seem to have extreme opinions of "every game after gen (X) is awful" and... the franchise is already dead for them anyways, so...

As for the thing about animals easily being associated with monsters, that's true, but not exclusive. I think it's more that people choose not to think of these inanimate objects as Pokemon and reject them, and then consider them to be unlike Pokemon or out of place because of that. I don't think it lacks creativity at all, it shows they're willing to think outside the box and not just stick to animals. The "pile of gears" may not be considered a good design by a lot of people, but you can't deny that it's unique and different.

Count this as a controversial opinion for the sake of staying on topic, too, if you want.
 
With the skarmory idea, its more the cohesion of the world. Its unlikely for a camel with a volcano on its back to exist (Camerupt), but its more realistic because its a variation of a camel and something that is alive in our world and you can link to it.
Where as whenever I look at klefki, I think of my house keys.
You see a lot of fantastic fanmade pokemon and then you see garbodor and the rest of them and I cant help like feel they were put together after a redbull fueled late night cram session before a deadline.

I actually never like the grimer and voltorb lines. Muk was just a large grimer and they flipped the colour scheme for Volvo and electrode and made it slightly bigger.
The reason why magnemite and litwick work are probably from the drastic change in their evolutions. With Litwick, you start of with a candle and finish with a chandelier. And the change from Magnemite toe Magnezone. Now compare that the Grimer and voltorb. I also liked honedge.

"As for the thing about animals easily being associated with monsters, that's true, but not exclusive. I think it's more that people choose not to think of these inanimate objects as Pokemon and reject them"

^^^ You basically just said why animals are more associated as miners than household items. Public conceptions.

Okay, lack of creativity might be the wrong word for it. I agree it's thinking outside of the box. But it dismantles the cohesion of the pokemon universe for me. So in the end, it probably a personal issue/taste for me.
 
AussieJimmy said:
1) I did not enjoy gen V. A lot of the pokemon designs I loathed. The story and characters were very mundane. Couldnt get into it. It actually made me take a few years off pokemon.

2) Kind of carrying on from the previous one, but Gen IV were the last good games they produced. Based on pokemon designs and story.

3) I hate mimiyuki (whatever its stupid name is) and a few other pokemon that shouldn't even belong in the pokemon universe. Whoever came up with klefki should have been fired.

4) I genuinely hate Max Raid battles. I find them drawn out and tedious. And dynamaxing is like the Wish version of the Mega Evolutions. Its annoying how it is the only way to get certain pokemon in the DLC

5) I disliked the DLC for Sword and Shield. They were boring. Armour Isle basically only introduced one legendary and allowed you to play with old pokemon again because they didn't want to do all the work first time around.
Crown Tundra was horrible. Just made you chase old legendaries again and called it a plot.
The DLC could have been a massive opportunity to bring back an old villain/evil group and release more new pokemon.

6) This one isn't unpopular, but im gonna say it....
Stupid f****** fairy pokemon.
Click to expand...

Definitely some very controversial opinions here, glad to see the thread being used so well honestly.

I'm honestly going to pitch in and say I don't like max raid battles either, but more for how poorly optimized they are. Multi-hit moves hitting enemies one at a time, moves that take a portion of HP every turn (like Sand Tomb) hitting one at a time, the AI being absolutely awful, and not liking dynamax much as a concept in general (though that's just personal preference). There are ways they can improve it and I do overall like the idea of raid battles with others, but goodness is it poorly implemented.
 
One more I just thought of. A lot of the colour schemes for shiny pokemon look absolutely awful. I feel like for the most part the standard colour schemes for most pokemon look better than their shiny counterparts. Eg: Shiny Espeon vs normal Espeon. One pokemon that I think has a good shiny colour scheme is Mightyena (Poochyena was also my first ever shiny I caught on Emerald).
 
- My biggest issue is the inconsistency with the art direction when it comes to some designs. The longer the franchises goes on, the more people work on it and the more variation you create.
That's normal. However, some designs really don't match/ fit and take me out of this fictional world. Sometimes the art style is way too different. You can see the design evolution in the starters for example by looking at the type of pupils/ eyes and body proportions. I wish they'd trim down the roster a bit more. That's just me.

- Each generation has it flaws and charms but I feel like a lot of people dismiss the Gen I core video games too easily. It's obvious that the games made so many years later are going to be fine-tuned, especially on a technical level.

- It could be better, it could be worse. That being said, the Pokémon franchise is still going strong and has created a global community whilst being financially successful. Sometimes we should just appreciate what we have. This doesn't mean that there's no room for feedback.

- Ken Sugimori's watercolouring style is God tier.

- One that a lot of people share on this thread, but I'm not a big fan of in-battle gimmicks. I prefer the Pokémon to be the gimmick. A general power-up downplays the identity of a Pokémon.

- B2/W2 had perhaps one of the more poor rosters but the games themselves were amazing in my opinion.

- There are way too many legends. Legendary Pokémon used to be exciting, now I try to avoid them because they feel like (mostly) overpowered gimmicks.

- I believe all games are too easy. I know it's because of the target audience but I wouldn't mind a bit more grinding and puzzling. It's not like they're asked to go full Dark Souls.
Which brings me to a suggestion rather than an a opinion. I would love if you were unable to save (or even use restoriation items) the moment you enter a building, facing a gym trainer or E4.
Again, unrealistic but the option would be fantastic for experienced and veteran players. It's not even like they're maintaining the difficulty, it gets actual easier and easier. More guidance, etc.

- I never understood the appeal for Lucario or Zoroark (which has an freakishly and oddly tiny, small waist).

Harmonie said:
~The open world of Pokemon Legends: Arceus is 100% the right direction for the Pokemon series to go and I'm very excited.
~The design of the ultra beasts are abysmal and I wouldn't be sad if they just never appeared ever again.
Click to expand...

Yes and yes! I don't know why they came up with ultra beasts. The designs don't fit.
 
Not sure everything is controversial here:

  1. I love the Pokémon (I mean, the creatures), I love the battle system (including Z-moves, Mega-Evolution, Dynamax), but I actually dislike Pokémon games. I don't enjoy walking between random towns to capture Pokémon to beat weak random bystanders, a team of morons, or champions that are unable to make a good Monotype team. I did enjoy it the first time, but after my fifth Pokémon game, I was bored. My last Pokémon game was Black (or White? don't remember).
  2. Pokémon Mystery Dungeon blue is the only official Pokémon game that I genuinely enjoy still today.
  3. Pokémon is an overrated franchise with excellent marketing abilities. (The controversial part resides in "overrated"). The first Pokémon game you play is awesome because this is where you discover its personality, the cute creatures and the child-ish atmosphere, but when you play the second game, you realise it's pretty much the same but with new creatures and in another place (well, most of the videogame industry works like this, including many Nintendo franchises like Zelda (pre-BOTW) and Mario (pre-Odyssey)).
  4. When I play Pokémon games, I do capture legendary Pokémons, but I don't include them in my team. I like to have a team with "normal", not-overpowered Pokémon.
  5. I absolutely hate the fact that they release games by pairs... (Well, it's probably not a controversial opinion XD)
  6. ... but I actually understand why they do remakes (like HeartGold/SoulSilver). It allows you to get and transfer Pokémon whenever some games are incompatible (can't transfer Lugia from GSC to DPP, but you can capture it in DPP).
  7. I don't care about shiny Pokémons. Legendary Pokémon shouldn't have a shiny form.
  8. I don't like Pikachu. Not sure why, I never found it especially cute. But I like Emolga, Dedenne, Plusle/Minun.
  9. Pokémon fangames are really just like the official Pokémon games, with a different story and maybe some new species. Why doesn't anyone try anything unusual?
  10. I loved the Beauty contest from Gen 3 (not sure of the name) and I love the Battle Frontier.
 
Last edited:
I am the same with point 4 and agree with point 6 especially as I am going through HeartGold which I am loving :)

I dont have much experience with points 2 and 10 and the others I am not sure what I would say cause I have mixed feelings on a lot of them.

Regards - Declan Sargent
 
Pokémon games (that aren't already Mystery Dungeon) would be better off without humans. (I swear I'm not a Team Plasma shill)
 
Pokemon should have ended after gen 2. And then after gen 4. I mean, I like gen 5 but the later games just don't stick with me.

I think people really forget what the first pokemon games were like to experience when they came out. I think there's a very different attitude in game freak management back then than there is now. I recently finished Crystal and I cant get over how much more I enjoyed the game than the last official game I played, OR/AS.

I think the main difference between HG/SS and OR/AS that causes most people to not like the latter as much is because GSC was very closely tied to RBY in many ways, such as the region, themes, story and worldbuilding. In comparison, RSE after GSC kinda felt like a friendlier, more casual break. When recreating RSE it felt really alienated as a result. And it didn't help that Kalos wasn't a very memorable region.

I felt like Alola was a really lost opportunity. Think about it - Hawaii is known for having rare species of animals that are going extinct because of colonial actions. The plot could be about helping restore the animals and culture of the region by making a sub plot focused on breeding and even photography. We could have gotten a hawaii-themed Pokemon Snap...

Also, while it's not my favorite pokemon, Unown is really cool and underrated and I always liked it. People making fun of him never seem to got the memo that they aren't exactly meant for battling... I kinda feel like they got cheesed out of something great in Gen 4 too but that's just a personal theory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top