How do you define a 'good pokemon'?

You estimate pokemon by their...

  • Attacks

    Votes: 24 35.3%

  • Type

    Votes: 17 25.0%

  • Stats

    Votes: 33 48.5%

  • Looks

    Votes: 26 38.2%

  • Number of evolutions

    Votes: 6 8.8%

  • Other (please describe in the reply)

    Votes: 18 26.5%
  • Total voters
    68
I discriminate upon appearance when deciding what's in my party, but I know full well that stats are what make a Pokemon actually good or bad.
 
I define a good pokemon as one that is competant at its optimal task. Blissey is best used as a special wall and is good at doing it, and thus it is a good pokemon. Flareon is best used a sweeper but has a poor movepool, and thus it is a bad pokemon.
 
I look over a few general things before I determine whether or not a pokemon is "good."

A list in order from importance.

1. Stats
2. Movepool
3. Typing
 
A good Pokemon is a Pokemon that you like. And that's it.
 
I think it would pretty much be all of the above. Stats, are one of the key aspect in a good Pokémon, but, you could have the best stats and an incredibly horrible moveset. So, it really depends on every aspect of the Pokémon for me to know if it's good, or if it is bad.
 
Stats in general. Like EV's and stuff is a good way. Although I choose based on looks and what attacks a Pokemon can learn.
 
thats a toughie. for me i look at overall stats,egg moves and move sets because any pokemon could be a good one just depends on prefrence and battle style.
 
A good pokémon to me would be a reliable pokémon. One that can get you out of most situations with a wide variety of moves and above decent stats.

Of course, I don't battle but that's what I think.
 
I judge Pokemon by both stats and general awesomeness. For example:

Slowbro: Great wall, and reminds me of myself.
Porygon-Z: Awesome Sp sweeper, put 600 Japanese children in epileptic seizures, and is just crazy.
Dragonite: DD + Outrage kills everything, and he's a dragon.
Metagross: Powerful as all hell, and is a quadripedal metal tank that knows Meteor Mash.
Blissey: Amazing Special sponge, and amazing Special sponge. Yes, twice over.
 
Attacks, type, and stats.

All of these are important qualities of a "good" Pookemon, if I do say so myself....
 
I think a pokemon is good because of it's type and stats. It's stats determine its power to inflict damage, its resistance and its speed. The type of a pokemon is also very crucial. For example, pokemon like Spiritomb and Sableye have no weaknesses thanks to their type combinations of Dark and Ghost.

ranger of almia said:
thats a toughie. for me i look at overall stats,egg moves and move sets because any pokemon could be a good one just depends on prefrence and battle style.
Click to expand...

Not all pokemon are good. You forgot the biggest exception: Magikarp. Even though it evolves into a Gyarados, it will take a while to do so.
 
Last edited:
Wow! This is an exceptionally well thought-out question!

My preference tends to involve pokemon hardly seen in competitive play, or even at all. It helps to have unevolved pokmeon, as long as they can still put up a decent fight. (For example, I have a pretty decent Hippopotas in my party that can take a lot of hits and deal lots of damage, but that's only for Pearl & PBR ingame battling, so I'm not sure whether or not it counts.) I do think that all the other elements of competitive battle also matter, like a pokemon's stats and movepool. However, even if you take the supposive best pokemon in that aspect, there's always going to be something that can take it down. Knowing that, I just stick to what I like, and do the best that I can with it, no matter how long it takes (even if I have to train a pokemon almost to Lv50 for an egg move, breed for a Pichu, evolve it, and then breed for another one afterwards, which is what I've been doing at the moment).

Summary: Anything can be stopped, no matter how powerful, so try to go for something unique to you and no one else.
 
By looks and type, I like water type Pokémon, and if it looks good, I can train it until it becomes good. Evolutions are great, too. Like 4 years ago, I always got over-excited if a pokémon evolved.
 
Srry but everything about stats, looks, and all that stinks...I say a good pokemon is one that the trainer can really share a connection or similarity with...stats, looks, all that stuff are just useless, it's all up to the person's interest that makes a pokemon good to them...that's what I think anyway...

For me, my "good" pokemon list would go on forever, no matter what pokemon it is...
 
I wouldn't say stats are useless maybe looks. Stats add to the pokemon being better than it could be. Utilizing the right training can help a lot. So I agree about the trainer caring a certain way for the pokemon but just saying that stats are useless that's a stretch lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top