How do you define a 'good pokemon'?

[Artemis]

OH! srry bout that, I didn't mean to say that stats are entire bad, I mean when I am EV training my pokemon I look at stats, IVs and those stuff all the time, but it really isn't the biggest thing that makes up what a "good" pokemon is, that's all I meant...lol
srry for the misdirected post...

 

[EffervescentEevee]

All of the requirements stated by the poll and a clever name.
This is why I prefer the older generations of Pokémon.
The names given to more recent generations are dry and unimaginative, I find this off-putting:tired:

 

[Shedinja8]

Stats: A good pokemon has high stats in all subjects (attack, speed, ect.) and along with this, a high HP. Attacks come very, very, VERY close but behind seeing as stats do not matter if a pokemon can't hurt its oppenent.

 

[Kite Katsumi]

I just have teams full of Pokemon that I like for one reason or another. Its more often than not for their looks. Strength/stats don't matter to me; since Grovyle is one of my favorites and part of my "trademark" party, I have to deal with low defense constantly (ie lv 70 with defense just reaching 80, with vitamins maxed out) and it hasn't stopped me yet. I also have a Riolu on my team, whom I will never allow to evolve. I like him more as a Riolu than a Lucario. I constantly get told by my little brother that my party sucks and they're weak, but it doesn't matter to me what other people think. As long as I'm happy with my party, all's well in the world of Pokemon.
In my opinion, a party filled with Pokemon that are strong with exceptional attacks isn't a party worth having. There's no challenge whatsoever and I dislike most "strong" Pokemon. I prefer to challenge myself using my favorites regardless of their stats. If that means tons of extra training in order to beat the elite, then so be it. :P
PS. This isn't directed at anyone, I haven't even read any of the replies to this post.

 

[Crimson Arcanine]

I judge on all possible factors.

I'm one of those people that have an extreme dislike for anything extremely powerful. Pokemon like Garchomp, Blissey and most Legendaries I dislike and would never use. I've always put look in reasonably high regard...but over the years this has wavered in support for stats and movesets. Only recently have I've started using pokemon I wouldn't of used one or two years ago (Bagon line, Skarmony). Type is a consideration as well...I favour Fire, Dark and Ground types and tend to steer clear of Bug and Grass types. In the past, water types were also a common type I'd use but I lost interest in them as the generations passed and only tend to like the water pokemon from the first two generations (Buizel and Floatzel being notable exceptions)

Plus I consider what role they will play too. I love Linoone and Pachirisu, but I would never even think of using them in competitive play. Instead I use Linoone ingame purely for Pick Up and Pachirisu the same reason or as one to complete the game with. My most disliked pokemon are those that either are crap statistic wise and look wise (Luvdisc) or any that are very powerful in move and stat wise but I don't like the look of (Garchomp, Blissey).

I'm a fusion between the competitive battler and the pokefan.

 

[CartoonJunkie]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who picked looks as one of the factors. I have to admit when I have a tough time choosing between pokemon, looks end up being the deciding factor. But seriously though, even if a pokemon has good stats, if I just can't stomach seeing it pop out of a pokeball, I don't care. Probopass for example, could be an uber and I still wouldn't want that ugly thing anywhere near me :P

 

[Peanut_Butters]

A happy Pokemon,is a good Pokemon. A nice-happy Pokemon is an even better Pokemon.

Oh wait,you mean...

Um,I supposed,Pokemon with high hp,a good moveset and a good attack stats.

I don't really look at that stuff.

 

[Lynnx]

I'd say all of the above; I start with Pokemon I like, because I never use Pokemon I dislike. Looks aren't that important, but yes, I do sometimes pick Pokemon I like because of their appearence. Type is very important to be because I spread my team out over a certain number of times. I don't care much about stats, but I prefer fast Pokemon with high attack and reasonable defense. Number of evolutions ... doesn't matter at all, I guess.

 

[Squire202]

I said stats AND type. Take a pokemon with great stats like Bastiodon, and make it 4X weak against one of the most populer moves in the game (Earthquake) and you have one bad pokemon.

 

[Capt. Couch]

A "good" Pokémon comes down to many things, and quite possibly every factor you can consider, but you can focus more on specific factors.

In my eyes, a good Pokémon is determined by its stats and moveset. For example, a ground-type Pokémon could avoid massive damage from a water-type attack with a high defense stat. With an uncommon, but effective and balanced moveset, the Pokémon can also pull itself out of an unforseen disadvantage.

A Pokémon shouldn't be judged as "good" when you first get it either; you should spend some time getting to know it and adjusting your battle style accordingly. By putting some work into training them, you'll be able to sit down after a while and confidently say that you have a good Pokémon, so the effort put forward into training a Pokémon is also another factor to consider. You are what makes the Pokémon good, it hardly ever comes that way naturally.

 

[hothead]

Id like to say great Question THere are a few things that make a ggood pokemon for me i think:
A good natrual Moveset
Good defence (Im a very defensive fighter)
and i know It is stupid but i can nt have an Ugly Ugly pokemon

 

[Stormer07]

I would always say a good Pokemon is one that looks awesome, and one that does well for me in battle ;)

 

[bluesonic1]

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...?

I judge by type, stats and looks. First comes looks then type then stats.

 

[~*!*~Tatsujin Gosuto~*!*~]

stats and attack are the most important in the game in my opinion


:t354:TG