Yeah, double battles are my favourite as well. I like Colosseum because of it.
Rotation battles with Pokemon shifting around on the field would look a bit silly with 3D models, but seeing the lack of battle animations, they clearly don't have a problem with that
I would like more variety in the battles too. But rather than a game built almost entirely around double battles or single battles or whatever, I would like a game where the different battle types are changed up frequently and you have to be prepared to answer all of them.
Nintendo Switch FC: 4867-2891-2493
Switch username: Em
Discord: Heavyarms55#1475
Pokemon Go FC: 3838 2595 7596
PSN: Heavyarms55zx
I would like more variety in the battles too. But rather than a game built almost entirely around double battles or single battles or whatever, I would like a game where the different battle types are changed up frequently and you have to be prepared to answer all of them.
Good point, I liked that Double Battles were frequent enough, not oppressively so, in Emerald, for example.
@Snaplocket I played Showdown a lot and still prefer single battles :v Although at Showdown I prefer to use a Monotype team though, it's great to defeat like a monoice with monograss
I could make a jab at how Gamefreak messed up so badly at balancing that they now apparently balance around the much less standard and frequent Doubles format, but yeah.
Pokémon could really just use a retool with movepools and abilities. Those are largely what determine how strong a Pokémon will be. Legendaries and to some extent Starters are sort of the exception since they’re by design special. Sometimes Gamefreak just likes to be stupidly gimmicky with what they give a Pokémon to the point that it is basically a joke.
Take Pyroar for example. His stats are not bad at all, but his move pool is terribly limited. Almost exclusively just Fire and Normal moves. His abilities are mediocre to meme worthy. They gave it Moxie despite being an awful physical attacker. The literal only use for it in that case is to use Entrainment to pass it on and have it function as a simple suicide lead to buff an ally slightly. Incredibly gimmicky and not even worth the effort, but that’s the niche they gave it with that ability. Gamefreak has a tendency of doing stuff like that.
Take Pyroar for example. His stats are not bad at all, but his move pool is terribly limited. Almost exclusively just Fire and Normal moves. His abilities are mediocre to meme worthy. They gave it Moxie despite being an awful physical attacker. The literal only use for it in that case is to use Entrainment to pass it on and have it function as a simple suicide lead to buff an ally slightly. Incredibly gimmicky and not even worth the effort, but that’s the niche they gave it with that ability. Gamefreak has a tendency of doing stuff like that.
Too often Gamefreak takes believably to such a far extent that is severely limits pokemon. Just remember how few fast attacking rock types and ice types there are out there, despite those types being abysmal defensively.
Currently Playing: Steamworld Heist, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, Tales of Graces F
@Snaplocket SuMo was criticized for not having that many new Pokemon and Alola forms being all gen 1 Pokemon. Also people weren't thrilled with the absence of Gym leaders.
@Snaplocket I'm the kind of person that reserves judgement til I see the final product. I had a terrible experience with gen 7(bought a digital version and it ran so badly I couldn't even play it, on a New 3DS) so it will likely always be my least favorite gen.
Pokemon responded to the complaints about Pokemon being cut in Sword and Shield. Read their response if you want, but it seems to basically amount to that they're still gonna cull some pokemon and that while you may not have certain pokemon this game, they may appear in future installments.
Edit: So just restated what was already said at E3
Forums
Topic: Pokemon Sword & Shield
Posts 821 to 840 of 3,072
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic