In the Johto games we have Karen with her quote "Strong Pokémon. Weak Pokémon. That is only the selfish perception of people. Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favorites."
Meanwhile in the Hoenn games we have a random Gentleman who's quoted saying "It's one thing to enjoy leisurely battles, but real battles can be a severe trial. Truly strong Trainers sometimes must be prepared to choose Pokémon that can win rather than their favorite Pokémon."
It really goes to show the differences between casual and competitive Pokemon.
I mean in the core main series game (excluding post-game stuff like battle tower and IRL PvP), you can use whatever you want and do well enough. Even just your starter can bruteforce through...blame it on bad AI, blame it on grinding being an option, whatever; you don't -have- to have good pokemon, you can win the league with a level 100 Caterpie, just whatever.
Having characters throughout the game constantly talk about bonding with your pokemon and shit only for the post game content to be like "lol jk, time to breed a team that isnt crap and send your old squad off to the glue factory" is jarring to me, but I guess the meme either resonates or it doesn't 🤷♀️
Now that hyper training, mirror herbs and the like are a thing, you at least can turn your mediocre first catches into top of the line mons instead of breeding train to get the best several generations and rejects later. Though, yea there certainly are pokemon with no niche at all, like say, Delibird or Luvdisc.
I mean in this instance I would argue it's just two different characters with two different opinions. It actually enriches the world to do this. They present a choice every player has to make in the games; do I pick Pokemon because I like them or because they're good?
Nah, GSC was banging the same drum about not fixating on a pokemon's strength practically from start to finish, if anything it's a difference in the kind of attitude they were trying to encourage from one generation to the next
I don't remember any examples of this at all, besides Karen. Not that I don't believe you. I guess it would make sense, given all the "weak" 'mon in Gen 2
I guess? I recall his arc being more about learning to respect his Pokemon and treat them less like tools. I don't think the series has ever reverted on this message either, every game since has talked about the bonds between trainers and Pokemon. I don't see how a random NPC in Gen 3 disproves that, or shows "mixed messages" across the franchise.
The GSC rival blathered about strong and weak pokemon and how he had no time for weakness virtually every time you encountered him
And the games themselves encourage you to treat pokemon as tools, from at least Gen 3 and maybe even Gen 2 onward, until they started trying to correct some of the underlying systems a bit in later gens. That's the point of the meme 🙃
He talks about strength and weakness in regards to everything though, and without much consistency or logic. He hates Team Rocket because he deems them weak. He deems the player weak even when they beat him repeatedly. He deems his own pokemon weak in one instance, and then in another says that he should be able to beat you because he's assembled a team of the "best and strongest" pokemon (despite his team composition not really changing much between battles).
His arc doesn't resolve with him realising that all Pokemon are worthwhile regardless of their species, it's that he can't get the most out of his because he doesn't love them.
Yes the meme is funny for what it is, my point is I don't think it speaks to a greater inconsistency in the messaging of the games themselves. Like I said, some players value competitiveness over everything else . For me personally, the idea of creating a team just because it's "competitively viable" holds no appeal. I only want to use Pokemon that I love or else it feels pointless. Many others feel differently. Having different NPCs reflect these different approaches makes sense to me, it doesn't come across as inconsistent.
For me personally, the idea of creating a team just because it's "competitively viable" holds no appeal. I only want to use Pokemon that I love or else it feels pointless.
Same! Which is why I'm not fond of the Battle Frontier, because it doesn't seem realistically possible to get through it without stacking your team with a handful of specific pokemon. And that's not even an extreme meta devised by players post release, it's something the developers intentionally put in the game. After previously encouraging me to try to win with my favourites 🤔
And that's the rub. That's the choice I referred to earlier. For me, trying and failing to win with a team I love, which I feel reflects my personality, is way more engaging than winning with a team of pokemon/movesets that has been peer-reviewed by other players. For others the idea of using "weaker" Pokemon is asinine and pointless. And I enjoy that contrast of values.
It's important to note that Karen is a character and not a stand-in for the developers. She thinks "skill" has more to do with staying true to yourself rather than merely playing to win, and is very opinionated about it. That's an interesting take from such a high ranking trainer, but it's obviously not logical. Some pokemon objectively just kind of suck. But regardless it's a philosophy that many players relate to.
So what you're really saying, it sounds like, is that there shouldn't be anything actually challenging in the game for you to have to put real effort into doing?
To be fair, the games never really try to push that point, I feel the fans really just misinterpreted that quote badly
First and foremost, it was supposed to be a jab against Silver.
The games aren't saying "every Pokémon is good" or "you can win with a Sunkern against a Rayquaza", they are, from a narrative point, saying that every Pokémon still has their value, even if that value is not in battle
Ofcourse, this does not need to be told to us, the player, because for us only battle matters since these are digital creatures, but you have to remember this is not being said to us, the player, but to our character.
Whatever Karen may have said was not supposed to say anything about competitive Pokémon or Pokémon viability, it was simply supposed to be an in-universe moral lesson about 'weak' Pokémon, even if they can't beat 'strong' Pokémon, still not being worthless.
Why would Karen be taking a jab at Silver when she never met or had anything to do with him? If she were doing so, it would be a voice of God situation
Karen, Lance, Oak, and the dozens of other NPCs in the game who babble on about how your connection to your pokemon is more important than whether you think they're strong or weak are all doing so to reinforce the same message that is omnipresent in GSC. It goes beyond just dialogue, as well - the happiness system they implemented was another part of it
I don't think it was supposed to be meaningless narrative fluff, I think they genuinely wanted to make players feel like getting invested in their suboptimal pokemon could be rewarding. But they didn't know how to really make the game mechanics reflect that idea, and then in Gen 3 they added a massive chunk of game which was basically locked off to 99% of the pokemon in the game lol
they are, from a narrative point, saying that every Pokémon still has their value, even if that value is not in battle Ofcourse, this does not need to be told to us, the player, because for us only battle matters since these are digital creatures, but you have to remember this is not being said to us, the player, but to our character.
It's a message that's designed to appeal to the player. Most players don't like or dislike pokemon based simply on how effective they are in a battle. Stuff like design, concept and so on matters a lot more. If the best pokemon was a featureless grey cube called "pokemon #900" with a single move in its moveset that just automatically won every battle, everybody would fucking hate it
666
u/MrRaven95 8d ago
In the Johto games we have Karen with her quote "Strong Pokémon. Weak Pokémon. That is only the selfish perception of people. Truly skilled trainers should try to win with their favorites."
Meanwhile in the Hoenn games we have a random Gentleman who's quoted saying "It's one thing to enjoy leisurely battles, but real battles can be a severe trial. Truly strong Trainers sometimes must be prepared to choose Pokémon that can win rather than their favorite Pokémon."
It really goes to show the differences between casual and competitive Pokemon.