How do you define a 'good pokemon'?

[Suzume]

I've been meaning to make this kind of thread for a while. Tha question is, how do you base your opinions on which pokemon are good pokemon and which pokemon are useless, weak or just not your type? A good pokemon would be pokemon you would like to have on your team or you just happen to like othervise.

Some examples: Do you like to use only water-type pokemon and don't like any others? Do you use only pokemon that have really high stats? Have you any use for pokemon who can't learn any strong attacks? Do you have only cute pokemon in your team?

As for myself, I'm the kind of person who has never looked at the pokemon's stats. I know everybody does it, but I just have never bothered. And since I don't really know which is defined as a high stat and which isn't, I can't even compare them well. Instead, I have always looked at the pokemon's attacks. For example, I like Larvitar's evolutions so much just because they can learn so many powerful attacks that I don't know which ones to teach. But the other factor for me is the pokemon's appearance. If I think that some pokemon is ugly, there's no way I'm going to use it for battling or anything else. I prefer both cute and cool-looking pokemon in my teams. ^^

I don't know if anyone would really judge pokemon by their number of evolutions, but I just tried to have more options. :P And perhaps someone thinks it's more interesting if the pokemon evolves...?

 

[~Kavin~]

Most people would say one based on good ev's and Iv's as well as natures. Me, Yeah it's good to have but you can make a great pokemon without knowing iv's or ev training or even having a neutral nature. It's all up to the trainer if you ask me. If your a good trainer, you will have good pokemon. Setting up different movesets that your opponents wouldn't suspect to throw them for a loop. Type advantage always plays a part as well. Even if you have a ev trained pokemon it still could loose to a pokemon with a neutral nature, not ev trained or has horrible iv's because if the ev trained is weak to a type X4 it could get owned at anytime. I think it depends on the trainer.

 

[Azonic]

Attacks: They play a decently big role in determining a Pokemon's potential, don't they? Attacks are one of the key reasons to why some Pokemon with good stats aren't used as much as Pokemon with lower stats but better movepools. Attacks are also the very beginning of where strategy starts. If a Pokemon doesn't have a big movepool, but has a few moves that work well together then the Pokemon might be able to be pretty threatening. Attacks do play a good role; after all, it is the key factor to dealing damage to your opponent. Also Attacks are also the key factor in using strategy to take a Pokemon down. When attacks are used in conjunction to the other factors that the Pokemon contains, it can be very threatening. However, good attacks won't mean much without good stats. In fact, a lot of Pokemon can learn a ton of attacks but can't use them at all because their stats don't support it. Miltank is a good example. It's movepool is jam-packed with special attacks, but have you seen it's Special Attack stat? It's big special movepool won't be getting far without a good Special Attack stat. Attacks do play a big role, but they mean nothing if the user has bad stats.

Type: A Pokemon's typing is one of the more minor factors that effect a Pokemon's strength. They apply more to defensive walls / tanks more than offensive sweepers. Typing can effect a Pokemon's reliability greatly, however. A bad typing but a good stat distribution won't be getting too far. Take a look at a lot of the Ground / Rock types, especially Rhyperior. Have you even seen it's stats? They're pretty darn high for a non-uber Pokemon. Not to mention Solid Rock, which protects it from its weaknesses a little more. However, this guy was bumped down to BL because of it's bad typing. I mean, it's weak to some of the most common moves in the game. I mean come on, x4 weakness to Grass and Water? x2 weaknesses to fighting and ground? It's weaknesses make it pretty vulnerable, even with Solid rock. For sweepers, type plays a more minor role. Fragile sweepers only are concerned about their typing because of the STAB boosts that they have to offer. Type is not as major as Attacks, but still plays a decent role in determining one's strength.

Stats: Definitely. A Pokemon can't do anything without good stats, but a Pokemon with good stats and a small movepool still can get pretty far. I would say a Pokemon's stats is probably the most important factor in determining a Pokemon's strength. Why else do you think a Pokemon trainer would spend so much time commited to Effort Values, Individual Values, and Natures? If I'm looking at a Pokemon at a glance and just skimming through the list for a good Pokemon, the stats are usually the first thing I look at. It's that important! A Pokemon can't take a hit without good defensive stats. A Pokemon can't deal damage without a good offensive stat. Even with a small movepool, you can still go certain ways to do something. However, without good stats the Pokemon you're using will not get very far in terms of strength and battling.

Looks: Definitely among the most minor things that I look for when I'm judging a pokemon. The appearance of a Pokemon is not a term to describe a Pokemon's strength. A Pokemon's appearance can definitely reflect a Pokemon's true strength, but the appearance of a Pokemon does not have a single direct effect on a Pokemon's strength.

Number of Evolutions: What? Definitely no. There are a ton of Pokemon that don't even evolve once, and they're so much stronger than other three-time-evolved Pokemon. For example, Golem is at it's final stage of evolution, but a Pokemon like Aerodactyl still would be considered stronger than it. Number of evolutions does not directly effect a Pokemon's strength and power in any way whatsoever.

My opinion?
I always look at more than one thing when I choose my Pokemon. The important thing you have to look for is how well the Pokemon's stats, abilities, and moves work together and the potential threat that it may hold. Also, looking for the relationship it holds between other large potential threats in the metagame. Basically, I look at how all it's capabilities come together as one and work in a conjunction to form a result. How well does it do in the metagame?

If I did have to pick one though, it would definitely have to be a Pokemon's stats. :D

 

[Euphoric Magikarp]

A good Pokemon to me is one I always want to use, I could care less about stats and other stuff.

 

[Mr. Epic]

I chose looks but what I mean by it is if it looks in my opinion cool and actually fun to train.
For example I hate Blissey because IMO its a fat pink nurse thing that I really would not like to train.

 

[Skaterzpenguin]

If I see a good pokemon I care about its EV's and stats the most! ;]

 

[Shvibzik]

I think the pokemon's ability affects how good it is too - example slaking's ability makes him lose one turn, which can be its loss, regardless of him amazing atack!

Also, though I agree that stats and atacks define a good pokemon, I wouldn't train pokes I don't like!

 

[coolcatkim22]

I think all Pokemon are good.
There may be some that I don't like as much as others but all of them are good in the way that they are unique and interesting.

 

[pokemew]

any pokemon on tier ou and up is good

i like other pokes i just dont usually use them to battle

 

[GKS]

Statistics of the fully evolved form of that Pokemon.

 

[Caelus]

My views on a "good" Pokemon varies depending on my mood.

I'm usually one that likes Pokemon with impressive stats, and some of my favorite Pokemons are actually notorious for having atleast one really good stat.

I might also deem a Pokemon "good" because of their looks. For example, I consider Piplup to be a "good" Pokemon due to it's overall cuteness, but Piplup, having weak stats, would normally not be considered "good" on my side, even so, Empoleon is a rather impressive Pokemon and it makes up for Piplup's downside.

Attacks are trivial to me, as far as I'm concerned, but I won't consider a Pokemon like Metapod to be "good" due to their lack of attacks.

As for Evolution, generally, I like Pokemons with an evolution. I don't care how much evolutions they have, just as long as they have one. I tend to look down upon Pokemons with no evolutions due to a vast majority of them (Excluding Legendaries) being "bad", but there are several, like Heracross, that I really like and I find to be fine without any evolution.

And then there's type, it should be obvious by now, but I prefer water-types over all other types, that said, I'm not a fan of any other types, but that doesn't stop me from liking Raichu, Gengar, Lucario, or any other Pokemon that lacks the water-type.

Basically, I only care for their: stats, looks, and in some cases, evolutions and types.
I just noticed noticed that this is my longest post in like...ever.

 

[Aurafire]

I'd have to go with stats...Simply because pokes with crappy stats are essentially unusable if you're trying to win battles. But typing and attacks also come into play....I basically just use pokemon that I want to use and feel would be effective =P

 

[Bibliophibian]

I usually look at the moves they naturally learn before anything else. I'm not a big fan of having to go searching for a bunch of TMs to make something useful. (Not that I don't use TMs, but that I don't want to have to use them.)
A Pokemon that doesn't learn a move of it's type probably wouldn't make it to my team either, and it's the same with one that won't learn a same-type move until a late level.

Stats don't really matter to me unless I'm trying to decide between two of the same type, and both with good moves. Abilities are important when it comes to things like Truant, but if it's just deciding between Pickup and Guts, it doesn't really matter either. Looks aren't important at all, since an ugly Pokemon can be just as good as a cute one, or one that looks cool. Something that's hard to train might get a second thought, depending on how much time i feel like putting into whichever game I'm playing.

Other than that, I take into account what types I already have on my team and try to keep them all balanced, and overall just try to pick something I can have fun with and not worry about all that much.

 

[Silhouette]

I go by a couple of things. Looks, not exactly. I mean, look at Shuckle. It looks like it couldn't take more than a hit, when it probably wouldn't be phased by getting ran over by a two-ton dump truck. I mean, I have my 'look' favorites (such as Pikachu and Furret) that wouldn't hold up in battle too well, then my stat favorites (like Mence or Shuckle) that can be real killers if you know what you're doing.

But, I don't think it would be fair to exclude looks and types. I believe that pokemon was originally based to be defined like that. I'm not sure if we were suppose to find out about IV's and EV's or not.

I would go with looks, though. ;)

 

[Tanooki]

A good Pokemon to me has at least some of these characteristics:

Looks cool
Has moderate to good stats (doesn't have to be off the charts or anything, but has to at least be useable)
Has a decent movepool
Evolves into a better Pokemon
If it doesn't evolve, has enough power to be worth using.

The evolution part is debateable for me, because again, provided that a single form Pokemon is powerful enough to use without needing an evolution, it doesn't matter if it evolves or not. Some Pokemon, though, badly need one, but that's a debate for another day.

 

[DGexe]

Oddly enough, stats have never truely played into my existance as an in-game trainer. That might explain why I'm not super-good at battles as people who focus on IVs, EVs, and stats are...

Ahem, however, I do look at three things to determine "good" Pokémon; move sets, types, and looks. I suppose looks are my first objective. When looking for members to add to the team, I always look their images/sprites over. Do I like their designs? Do I like their colors? Do I like how they look in battle? Astheticly speaking, do they appeal to me? If so, they have a much higher chance of being on the team.

Second, I look at their types. I almost always try to have a balanced team of various types. I am not a fan of the "monotype team". It doesn't always work out, however; sometimes my asthetics appeals overplay my types. That explains why I have Psychic and Psychic/Fighting on the same team right now. On top of that, I consider having various types for Pokémon a lead in to my third reason...

Move sets; as I enjoy varied types of Pokémon, I also enjoy varied move sets. I don't always enjoy having all moves that are of the same time as the team member. For example, my DPPt Haunter knows the following moves: Nightmare, Hypnosis, Sludgebomb, and Dark Pulse. That's Ghost, Psychic, Poison, and Dark respectively.

Although I usually go mostly for offense-only (not a good idea, I'm sure), I still look at move types as well when considering which Pokémon are "good" to be on the team.

So, there you go.

 

[Zenith101]

I picked other because: I look at strength and how much hp does it have.

 

[Venia Silente]

I pretty much value everything by fun value, and so do I with Pokémon. To me, a "good" Pokémon is, essentially, aPokémon that is fun to play with, or against.

Movepools play a large role in this. If a Pokémonhas a movepool that allows for a fine selection of attacks and strategies to surprise your opponent, or in the case of the CPU, mock its IA, then that is a Pokémon I may consider good. Stats of course are also important: your Pokémon must be able to stay in the battlefield for long enough that you can enjoy using your strategies.

I also value them by their portrayal in the media, mostly the anime. Not necessarily their physical portrayal, which is important, too, but more their "personality". For example, Umbreon and the Nido family rock! They look and act like you just don't want to piss them off.

Of course, the "I just like it" factor also comes into play. I guess I consider some Pokémon better because I know them more because I like them. That's the way it works, it just does. I don't know why I like Mareep, but what the... That is, I get to consider "good" the Pokémon I get to understand to a "deeper" level.

 

[CombatArmsWarrior]

How Do I "Define" A GOOD pokemon?

I choose or find a good pokemon if It has good looking a coolness, Good stats, It has good EV's and IV's, and It is really hard to beat with little weaknesses.

 

[Stormer07]

I would say a Pokemon that looks cool with great stats!