Unpopular opinions

While not Pokemon, I genuinely do not like the LA remake being based on sprites and OG map design
From errors in OG sprites being translated (the Goomba eyes), to weirdly keeping the mentality that Top down Zelda can't be none cutesy, to boss design being archaic still despite you being able to flip over enemies or move diagonally. I'd rather the entire game be based on art the devs did for realized environment and chars alongside unshown concepts, not interpretations based on limitations

Is it better than BDSP? Sure, but low bar
Is it good? Not really for the mentality, even if the art is decent. It doesn't help that the intro actually is closer to OG LA art, but then immediately switches to dolls based on sprite

And no, the "but it's a dream, so it makes sense things look different" excuse doesn't fly, Link is unaware until end game for that

Actually most of this applies to Pokemon remakes...
 
Sure as hell isn't the Pidove line (which has a horrible discrepancy between its stats and movepool) or the Patrat line (outclassed by Lilipup).
The best part is that Pidove isn’t even an option until after Gym 1, because that’d just give Oshawott-choosers too much of an advantage against Cilan, I guess.

you must use The Monkey. No other fate lies before you. Do not resist.
 
The best part is that Pidove isn’t even an option until after Gym 1, because that’d just give Oshawott-choosers too much of an advantage against Cilan, I guess.

you must use The Monkey. No other fate lies before you. Do not resist.
I have to wonder if that creative choice wasn't responsible for a lot of BW1's initial mixed reception. Obviously, the soft reboot style was already a pretty dramatic creative choice, but railroading the game so you'd have to have essentially a static team until you beat the first gym likely threw a lot of people off.
 

Coronis

Impressively round
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I like the future paradox pokemon more than the past paradox pokemon for the exact same reason people dislike the future ones, just reversed

A common argument is that the future paradox pokemon are just robot versions of already existing pokemon but that can also be applied to the past ones
"The past paradox pokemon are just primordial/dinosaur versions of already existsing pokemon"

And while the future paradoxes have attributes to make up for this such as their animations and the fun creative liberties taken with their designs (while nothing much, things like Iron Hands' floating hands, Iron Treads looking very different compared to Donphan, Iron Valiants existance and Iron Bundle's sack(?) tail and detachable head help them stand out and makes them more memorable) the past ones really don't have anything like that to set them apart other than their appearance and paradoxically (haha) makes them feel less alive than the future paradoxes

This doesn't mean that all the past ones are devoid of creativity and uniqueness and that all the future ones are very different from the "base" pokemon (Iron Thorns is the worst offender of this but even it has a semi-significant design change from Tyranitar (the back spikes) while also looking deceptively different thanks to the robot appearance)

TL:DR The past paradoxes have higher lows but lower highs while the future ones have lower lows (but not that low) and (much) higher highs

Thank you for reading my rant i hope you have a good day :wo:
 
Last edited:

Coronis

Impressively round
is a Battle Simulator Moderator Alumnus
I like the future paradox pokemon more than the past paradox pokemon for the exact same reason people dislike the future ones, just reversed

A common argument is that the future paradox pokemon are just robot versions of already existing pokemon but that can also be applied to the past ones
"The past paradox pokemon are just primordial/dinosaur versions of already existsing pokemon"

And while the future paradoxes have attributes to make up for this such as their animations and the fun creative liberties taken with their designs (while nothing much, things like Iron Hands' floating hands, Iron Treads looking very different compared to Donphan, Iron Valiants existance and Iron Bundle's sack(?) tail and detachable head help them stand out and makes them more memorable) the past ones really don't have anything like that to set them apart other than their appearance and paradoxically (haha) makes them feel less alive than the future paradoxes

This doesn't mean that all the past ones are devoid of creativity and uniqueness and that all the future ones are very different from the "base" pokemon (Iron Thorns is the worst offender of this but even it has a semi-significant design change from Tyranitar (the back spikes) while also looking deceptively different thanks to the robot appearance)

TL:DR The past paradoxes have higher lows but lower highs while the future ones have lower lows (but not that low) and (much) higher highs

Thank you for reading my rant i hope you have a good day :wo:
I think all we’re seeing here is Pokemon players like dinos more than robots. Which makes a lot of sense considering the name of the game is catching weird and wonderful creatures.
 
I like the future paradox pokemon more than the past paradox pokemon for the exact same reason people dislike the future ones, just reversed

A common argument is that the future paradox pokemon are just robot versions of already existing pokemon but that can also be applied to the past ones
"The past paradox pokemon are just primordial/dinosaur versions of already existsing pokemon"
Both groups have designs that are not large departures from the base mon, but it does feel like there are more future paradoxes whose designs feel too close to the originals. This is particularly highlighted so far by Walking Wake, Raging Bolt being very different in design from Suicune and Raikou, while Iron Leaves and Iron Crown do look adhere pretty closely to Virizion and Cobalion. That doesn't mean they are bad designs, per se, but I think people in general like it more when the deviations are substantial.

My initial impression of the paradoxes based on the leak dex images and menu icons was that the past paradoxes were more different than the future paradoxes. Having now used most of them in game my impression is not as lopsided, but I do still give the past paradoxes an edge for differing more from their base forms.

My detailed assessments:

:great_tusk: vs :iron_treads: vs :donphan: : I feel like Iron Treads deviates from Donphan more than Great Tusk here, and is typical of some of the changes that I wish were more prominent in the other future paradoxes, as they were creative with the body plan (the tread trunk draping from the back over the face as opposed to being a nose, and giving treads the domed LED face). At first I wasn't as keen on Great Tusk, which did just look like "dinosaur" Donphan to me, but it grew on me a lot. Having more color helped, I think. Overall I like both, but in terms of assessing deviations I'll give 1 point future, 0 points past.

:slither_wing: vs :iron_moth: vs :volcarona: : My first impression of these was that Slither Wing was way cooler than Iron Moth, being a kaiju-esque mutant of volcarona crossed with larvesta, while Iron Moth looked more like a straight robot conversion of Volcarona. The jet-pack on Iron Moth is a nice touch, but in terms of deviation from base form I would still give 0 points to future and 1 point to past. This said, I've grown to really like Iron Moth, and while I still like Slither Wing's design, the fact that it is bug fighting instead of bug dragon really lets it down.

:scream_tail: vs :jigglypuff: : This one does feel pretty close to base form, earning 0 points on that front, though I think a lot of people give it bonus points for being a paradox of an NFE mon.

:brute_bonnet: vs :amoonguss: : Bonnet being a weird dinosaur-mushroom hybrid definitely earns it a point for deviation from base form for me. Originally it looked like it was going to be Amoongus with mossy hair and spiky... 'hands', but when it turned out to have a centaur-dinosaur thing going on I'd say that was enough to get 1 point.

:flutter_mane: vs :misdreavus: : when this first leaked it was after we got to see roaring moon's dex image and a few of the other paradoxes that were bigger deviations in design, so I was a bit disappointed in it. Since seeing it in game and being able to make out the feather-texture on its mane-arm(?), my opinion is that it's more of a subtle variation but still one that I really like and Flutter Mane is my favorite gen 9 mon (though I wish it had fangs instead of a snaggle tooth). But, in terms of distance from the base form I'll give it 0 points.

:sandy_shocks: vs :magneton: : I am not a big fan of sandy shocks, but I will definitely give it 1 point for being a wacky take on Magneton.

:roaring_moon: vs :salamence_mega: : The first image of this to leak was the dex image, which looked amazing. Major improvement over Salamence and Mega Salamence, which I never cared for. After that things kind of went downhill: the menu sprites and art do not do roaring moon justice. I'd say my impression of the deviation from mega mence has diminished somewhat, but I'd still give this 1 point.

:walking_wake: vs :suicune: : As mentioned above, great example of deviation from base form. Going from quadruped to raptor is an inspired design choice. Improves on the design of a Pokemon that I never cared for. 1 point.

:raging_bolt: vs :raikou: : Again, I love that Raikou got turned into a brontosaurus. I wish they changed its head up a bit more like they did for Wake, but it still earns 1 point.

:iron_bundle: vs :delibird: : At first this looked like a more or less straight up robot conversion, but where bundle shines are its animations, having the ejectable head and similar effect for the tail. I do really like it now, but in terms of deviations I will give it only 0.5 points since without the animations it does look like a robot conversion played straight.

:iron_hands: vs :hariyama: : I saw the menu sprite for this first and was definitely underwhelmed with how little it changed from Hariyama, a mon that I don't care much for. I've warmed up to it since then. Hands does improve of one of Hariyama's weakest points -- its stupid ears -- and the floating hands are a nice touch. Overall, a good design and an improvement on the original mon, but relative to some of the others I'll give it 0 points.

:iron_jugulis: vs :hydreigon: : Another one where I saw the menu sprite first and was underwhelmed. After seeing it in game, I do appreciate the LED face a lot -- it's used better on Jugulus than most future paradoxes, where the LED on faces are mostly black screens with LED eyes -- and the detached arms are again a nice touch, but it really does just look a lot like robot Hydreigon. 0 points. If they had gone in a direction more like the original tank design Sugimori talked about in an interview, maybe the deviation would have been bigger.

:iron_thorns: vs :tyranitar: I love Iron Thorns, but it is really just robot Tyranitar. 0 points. The electric-crystal back spikes are a nice touch, at least.

:iron_valiant: vs. :gallade_mega:/:gardevoir_mega: : I will give Valiant 1 point, though that's largely because it's a mix of Gardevoir and Gallade's features, so it comes off as a big deviation compared pairwise to each of the base inspirations. At first I thought it was not as good as Roaring Moon, and I still feel like its face looks a bit too much like Mecha Sonic's, but now I would say I probably prefer Valiant over Roaring Moon.

:iron_leaves: vs :virizion: : As said, seems like a straight robot conversion. It's not bad, but not as inspired as Walking Wake, even when taking into account the neck blades that you only see in animations. 0 points.

:iron_crown: vs :cobalion: : Again, just not as cool of a design remix as Raging Bolt, even taking into account the horn blades that are sadly also only visible during animations. 0 points.

Lastly, I could compare the Raidons to Cyclizar, but being box legends they both had a lot of care put into their designs, so in terms of deviations they would both get a point so I may as well not count them. I will say that overall I did like Koraidon better than Miraidon, though both are great designs. Miraidon's flaws are its ear wings in glide mode are meh, whereas Koraidon's head-wings are excellent. And then in battle mode Miraidon's serpentine body and jet engines on its thighs put it in an unfortunate design category shared with Palkia.

So, tallying everything up, in terms of deviation from base form I gave the past paradoxes a total of 6/9 points, and the future paradoxes a total of 2.5/9 points.

That said, a lot of the mons I gave 0 points to are mons whose designs I still really like, and its also worth noting that if all of the paradoxes were suicune -> walking wake style remixes, then it would probably feel less impactful overall, so more tame redesigns like Flutter Mane and Iron Moth are welcome. It's just that the future paradoxes feel like they could have used a few more big twists.
 
Uhhhhh so this isn't a one-liner: a decent chunk of the Unova Pokédex is kind of lame? And I don't mean easy targets like Garbador, I mean the Pokémon that are clearly stand-ins for "staple" roles (e.g. Pidove as the generational Pidgey equivalent) and their overall battle prowess. This is a problem with early game BW in particular, and it feels extra bland to me for some reason because of it.
Yeah, I'm inclined to agree there. Unova has a lot of my favourite lines, but they're all later on. The early-game, with a few exceptions (hi Excadrill) is mostly junkmons with little in the way of interesting or useful kits.
Yeah, the early game had done a bad first impression when it comes to concept and design, but mechanic-wise, it’s necessary that they aren’t top tier materials so that it would not completely power crept the four past regions… of which there were no Pokémon from those regions back in BW.

If most of the early game Pokémon physical design aren’t so bad, Unova‘s Pokédex as a whole would have a much less divisive reception.
Yes, yes, and YES.
Generation V gave us a bunch of fan-favorites. Chandelure is perhaps the biggest one, but there's also Scolipede, Archeops, Golurk, Sawsbuck, Scrafty, Cofagrigus, the Joltik line, Zebstrika, Haxorus, Bisharp, Braviary, Hydreigon, Volcarona, the Swords of Justice... and several more I might have missed here.
The problem is that the early game of BWB2W2 puts the spotlight on significantly less popular Pokémon:
  1. The Fire and Water Starters are very divisive,
  2. The Pidove line is very lame,
  3. The Patrat line is also lame,
  4. The elemental monkeys are among the least popular Pokémon ever,
  5. Conkeldurr is ugly,
  6. Woobat, more like Who?-bat!
blah blah Gen 5 ugly
Sadly still better than Gen 4
I really hate Gen 4/5 trees. Especially 4s
Ruby and Sapphire have the worst trees in the series, without doubt.
More fangames should use Gen III-style sprites, QuentinQuonce is wrong, don't listen to this fellow ever again. I'm joking, okay?
You know what
All Pokemon has worst trees
Well not all, but GF's environmental design is lacking most games
Game Freak should acknowledge Galar's ugly tree as not just a meme, but an in-universe phenomenon with dozens of Tourists staring at it and taking pictures.
And speaking of memes, penile jokes about Wiglett are 100% funny, change my fucking mind.:wiglett:wiggle wiggle:wiglett:
 
I think all we’re seeing here is Pokemon players like dinos more than robots. Which makes a lot of sense considering the name of the game is catching weird and wonderful creatures.
imagine liking dinos or robots

both suck, and that's my hot take

dinosaurs are just ugly and i dont want to see them

this also goes for traditional "dragon" designs they are also ugly, and the more the dragon-type goes from boring traditional dragon design to cooler things the more i like them

a lot of "cool" pokemon like gyarados aren't cool they're just ugly.

cool pokemon in general are worth less than cute pokemon anyways to me
 
imagine liking dinos or robots

both suck, and that's my hot take

dinosaurs are just ugly and i dont want to see them

this also goes for traditional "dragon" designs they are also ugly, and the more the dragon-type goes from boring traditional dragon design to cooler things the more i like them

a lot of "cool" pokemon like gyarados aren't cool they're just ugly.

cool pokemon in general are worth less than cute pokemon anyways to me
See, my thing is that I consider there to be a lot of overlap between the cute mons and the robots. Mons I consider to be cute are heavily weighted towards inorganic Steels and Ghosts, including Magnemite, Beldum, Bronzor, Golett, Honedge, and Revavroom.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 2, Guests: 2)

Top