Thoughts on Pokemon archetypes?
How does everyone feel about the fact that almost every mainline game has Pokemon like an early bug that evolves quickly but lacks long-term benefits, pseudo-legendary dragons that are found late in the game but can be trained to be as powerful as legendaries, early bird Pokemon, rodent normal-type Pokemon, Pikachu clones et cetera?
While I feel some traditions should absolutely be retained, like how you always pick either a grass, fire or water type at the start (which is a great way to introduce the concept of type advantages), others can make new Pokemon really forgettable to me, as they blend in with 8 other Pokemon that were made to facilitate the same role. Even if they wanted to continue some of these trends, I'd appreciate it if they differentiated them by making them a different type or species (not every pseudo-legendary being a dragon, for example).
Comments
-
Starters evolving to gain a second type that renders them with a weakness to the starter against which they previously had an advantage was a good way to balance them in the later game without upsetting the initial introduction of the concept of type advantages for their initial forms.
I think the series should look to evolve and iterate on concepts rather than just rigidly adhering to what came before or throwing out things that work for the sole purpose of replacing them with new things. Keep what works, improve it where you can, but don't be afraid to remove what doesn't just because it's a longstanding feature.
1 -
I'm generally a big fan of the archetypes. Seeing new pokemon is exciting, and seeing old pokemon is comforting, but seeing the new early-game bug is a little of both. That "new but familiar" feeling is one I've associated with the entire series since before I was even old enough to feel nostalgic for it, and the archetypes fit right into it.
I agree that they should use different types when they can though. Birds should be Flying, bugs should be Bug, and "rodents" are more defined by being Normal than by being rodents, but pseudos don't need to be Dragon (in fact they've never needed to be Dragon). I'd also love for them to make a starter trio that isn't Fire/Water/Grass. I get why Fire/Water/Grass is the standard, because those types feel more like opposites than the few other perfect triangles that exist, but they could change it up every once in a while.
The only ones I don't like are Pikaclones. Most archetypal designs are distinct from each other apart from their one common trait and feel like natural parts of the world -- Pikaclones are the opposite of those two things.
2 -
Archetypes, I believe, actually make pokemon easier to remember. They provide some sort of grid, where each line is generation and each column is the archetype. This way even the lamest pokemon like Dedenne have something memorable to them.
As for pseudo-legendaries, I think the original idea of developers was to make them Dragons. Among the only two non-Dragon ones one is almost a dragon, and the other one suspiciously comes from the only generation with two pseudos and might actually not be one.
1 -
Personally I find That it is a bit repetitive but adds a sense of familiarity. So I think a way to improve the archetypes might be to start using new ones except for pseudos because there a bit to unique for a replacement,
1 -
In their defense, I would say that the reusing of certain molds to create new pokemon allows them to deliver us better pokemon. I would argue that the first implementation of such archetypes not being the fan favorites by default is proof of this.
Think about all these archetypes and whether the first time they introduced them produced your favorite Pokemon. Is Charmander your favorite starter, is Pidgey your favorite bird? Maybe, but for a lot of people it took many iterations of the same concept for them to go "that's the one for me, that's my favorite."
I appreciate that Gamefreak doesnt abandon creature design concepts and instead revisits them again and again. If they didnt, then I would lament whenever they failed to hit it out of the park on the first try bc "they already tried that archetype, they can't do it again" would prevent us from getting other takes on the same concept. I for one love Garchomp and Aggron despite them being one of many of their kind.
1 -
I think that some archetypes should stay while others should go. Who needs a regional mammal or a feminine, plant-based Pokémon anyway?
0
