this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2024
89 points (100.0% liked)
games
20523 readers
132 users here now
Tabletop, DnD, board games, and minecraft. Also Animal Crossing.
-
3rd International Volunteer Brigade (Hexbear gaming discord)
Rules
- No racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or transphobia. Don't care if it's ironic don't post comments or content like that here.
- Mark spoilers
- No bad mouthing sonic games here :no-copyright:
- No gamers allowed :soviet-huff:
- No squabbling or petty arguments here. Remember to disengage and respect others choice to do so when an argument gets too much
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think there's something deeply contradictory in Pokemon's messaging that there is a quantifiable hierarchy in power, even in the anime. Training is great and everything, but a starter bird wouldn't win in a matchup with any fully evolved mon, let alone a legendary.
There's a cynicism that's passed off as realism that decides that one creature is inherently better than another. Is that biological essentialism? I had a similar issue in Steven Universe where Jasper was treated as a superior fighter to Amethyst regardless of training and tactics.
Like yeah, a physically weaker creature might not win in a battle of strength, but that doesn't mean there's no way to win a fight in another way. And even if not, it's fucked up that there is an inherent value system in place.
Then again all of the Pokemon values they express in the series falls apart when you look at the fact that it's possible to trade a Pokemon, and there's an incentive to do so. It really fucked me up as a kid seeing ash trade his Butterfree and then later feeling sad when Butterfree left on his own accord and was sad. Pokemon are depicted as sentient and it's bizarre at this point they still incentivize trading with the tagline: Gotta Catch'em All!
Ironically I was just thinking "like what if evolution trees were more fleshed out and went further, so some filler trash like pidgey ends up having a path to turn into the legendary birds or something comparable." And the more I thought about how, mechanically, that would work I came to the ironic conclusion that instead of pokemon being looter-shooter weapons, they should be more like the weapons from Monster Hunter in having trees and upgrades.
Yeah, that disconnect between how the story is just "they're real and smart and your friend" and everything else is "so we gotta sell two identical versions of the same game but with different collectables, and we gotta move all these gacha card packs, and..."
I've always thought that Pokemon should introduce the competitive tiers to the main game. Explain them as being the in-universe equivalent of weight classes - there's nothing wrong with being a featherweight, but it's understood that you shouldn't get put into the ring with a super heavyweight, because the competition favors certain physical attributes over others.
Hell, the games could be completely revitalized if they based more of the game mechanics around competitive battles. Teach the players about walls and sweepers, program smart opponents who play to win, cut out all of the XP grinding and the breeding for perfect stats shit and focus on the player getting better at the game instead of just increasing their numbers, etc.
this sounds like a formalisation of the smogon shit which i don't think im opposed to but i havent played a pokemon since X & Y so yeah. i dont think there's any point being made here, just nintendo making ubers real would be funny
try radical red sometime. it's a mod that forces you to learn competitive strategies and team building because the AI is not only playing to win, but it also has access to things like favorable terrain that you can't change.