Thread: Best Replacement Mascot

I don't see the need to replace the mascot just because it's not "good in battle". Even more so, mascots aren't suppose to be the best at what the "sport" is. For example, I doubt football (or soccer, for those who call it that) mascots are tailored to be the perfect football ace, nor are the people who wear the disguises required to know how to even play it. They are good at their job, and that's how they should be. Pikachu does his job pretty well; he looks cute and appeals both genders. Also, while Raichu isn't topnotch, both he and Pikachu are pretty decent battlers on their own right. Sure, they can't easily beat a Mewtwo, but does that really make them bad? Besides, one does not simply replace the mascot, a Pokémon everyone knows. With that said, I think Pikachu is a wonderful mascot and Pokémon in his own right. He is a fine ambassador to the series.

Why do mascots have to evolve into something powerful?

Given that just about any Pokemon can be made useful in-game (my Elite Four teams have included such powerhouses as Delcatty, Corsola and Spinda), why would the average fan of the franchise care about any mascot's competitive viability? In what universe would tier lists influence a company's choice of mascot?

I just... don't see where you're going with this.

Originally Posted by Bikini Miltank

Why do mascots have to evolve into something powerful?

Given that just about any Pokemon can be made useful in-game (my Elite Four teams have included such powerhouses as Delcatty, Corsola and Spinda), why would the average fan of the franchise care about any mascot's competitive viability? In what universe would tier lists influence a company's choice of mascot?

I just... don't see where you're going with this.

As kids are gaining more access to the internet and discover Smogon, they'll think its competitive viability and tier list is by law and anyone who uses low tier Pokemon will lose more often. Kids like strong Pokemon, not weak Pokemon, which can bring a threat to Pikachu's mascot status because Ryu has proven himself to be a good fighter while being the mascot of the Street Fighter franchise. Because Game Freak refuses to make more improvements to the Pikachu family, they need to replace it with another family who has both a marketing potential and decency in competitive battles (seeing as reusable TMs and the Battle Frontier are a message that they do care about the Stop Having Fun Guys).

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

Originally Posted by Bikini Miltank

Why do mascots have to evolve into something powerful?

Given that just about any Pokemon can be made useful in-game (my Elite Four teams have included such powerhouses as Delcatty, Corsola and Spinda), why would the average fan of the franchise care about any mascot's competitive viability? In what universe would tier lists influence a company's choice of mascot?

I just... don't see where you're going with this.

As kids are gaining more access to the internet and discover Smogon, they'll think its competitive viability and tier list is by law and anyone who uses low tier Pokemon will lose more often. Kids like strong Pokemon, not weak Pokemon, which can bring a threat to Pikachu's mascot status because Ryu has proven himself to be a good fighter while being the mascot of the Street Fighter franchise. Because Game Freak refuses to make more improvements to the Pikachu family, they need to replace it with another family who has both a marketing potential and decency in competitive battles (seeing as reusable TMs and the Battle Frontier are a message that they do care about the Stop Having Fun Guys).

Why do we have to take Smogons fun little rankings into account all the time??? On the discussion about Kyurem's new formes, people talk about Nintendo picking Type X instead of type Y to be in Uber or BL or whatever, as if Nintendo takes a fan site such as Smogon into account when designing Pokemon either for movies or mascots!

I'm sure that Game Freak are aware of the competitive scene, and the metagame may well be taken into account when designing new Pokemon and assigning learnsets (the scarcity of Stealth Rock in Gen V is likely a result of this). But that's as far as it goes. Choosing mascots is a whole other business, and I'm sorry, but the competitive metagame doesn't factor into it at all. Most fans of the franchise don't do serious competitive battling. Most people who do battle competitively will not deride a Pokemon simply because it doesn't have the stats of Garchomp. There is a thriving NU metagame.

The fact that more kids have access to the internet now than they did in 1996? It means nothing, especially since widespread access to the internet has been common now for a decade or more. In the Red and Blue days, you didn't need a tier list to tell you that Mewtwo was stronger than Butterfree. The differences in power between certain Pokemon have always been obvious even to the most casual players. And hey, those power differences are the very reason that tier lists exist. If there were no tiers, everyone would play the same small number of overpowered Pokemon, and the vast majority of the Pokedex, with all its variety and potential for interesting teams, would go unused. Splitting Pokemon into tiers is a way of ensuring that people can use the Pokemon they like without running into legendaries that can beat them on the basis of stats alone. It is not a means of ranking which Pokemon is best, and those who think it is are not only gravely mistaken, but also represent a tiny fraction of the fandom.

Seriously, go and take a look at the favorite Pokemon poll. The favorites are a mixture of the competitively strong and weak, as well as the cute and the badass-looking. The winner? Charizard, which has languished in the lower tiers since forever. Many kids like strong Pokemon, no doubt about it. But this generally means a Pokemon that looks and seems strong. Whether that Pokemon has been proven competitively viable based on metagame analysis is not going to be important to the average young fan.

Eh, Pikachu has been the mascot for so long, that it would just feel wrong if they replaced him. If there was a "Pikachu shouldn't be replaced" option in the poll, I'd choose that XD

Originally Posted by Bikini Miltank

I'm sure that Game Freak are aware of the competitive scene, and the metagame may well be taken into account when designing new Pokemon and assigning learnsets (the scarcity of Stealth Rock in Gen V is likely a result of this). But that's as far as it goes. Choosing mascots is a whole other business, and I'm sorry, but the competitive metagame doesn't factor into it at all. Most fans of the franchise don't do serious competitive battling. Most people who do battle competitively will not deride a Pokemon simply because it doesn't have the stats of Garchomp. There is a thriving NU metagame.

But the main focus has always been the OU metagame, which lacks diversity and needs to expand the # of Pokemon on list so there will be less Pokemon in NU. It's also unfair for players who want use a low tier like Charizard to go against a high tier like Ferrothorn, even though there is an option to use low tier Pokemon in OU, because their analysis datas say something along the lines that the low tier Pokemon in question deserves to stay in the lower tiers as if they only prefer the Pokemon they have now in OU, which hints a form of elitism.

The fact that more kids have access to the internet now than they did in 1996? It means nothing, especially since widespread access to the internet has been common now for a decade or more. In the Red and Blue days, you didn't need a tier list to tell you that Mewtwo was stronger than Butterfree. The differences in power between certain Pokemon have always been obvious even to the most casual players. And hey, those power differences are the very reason that tier lists exist. If there were no tiers, everyone would play the same small number of overpowered Pokemon, and the vast majority of the Pokedex, with all its variety and potential for interesting teams, would go unused. Splitting Pokemon into tiers is a way of ensuring that people can use the Pokemon they like without running into legendaries that can beat them on the basis of stats alone. It is not a means of ranking which Pokemon is best, and those who think it is are not only gravely mistaken, but also represent a tiny fraction of the fandom.

But they sometimes tend to go overboard with tier lists by ruining reputations of some Pokemon who gained their popularity from the anime.

Seriously, go and take a look at the favorite Pokemon poll. The favorites are a mixture of the competitively strong and weak, as well as the cute and the badass-looking. The winner? Charizard, which has languished in the lower tiers since forever. Many kids like strong Pokemon, no doubt about it. But this generally means a Pokemon that looks and seems strong. Whether that Pokemon has been proven competitively viable based on metagame analysis is not going to be important to the average young fan.

The fact that many kids like strong Pokemon is part of the main problem. They'll think Pikachu is a strong Pokemon because of its mascot status but will soon realize that it and its evolved form, Raichu, are mediocre in the battlefield, which will result on its hatedom (just like Charizard due to its Stealth Rock weakness and Envoy's opinion being taken by word here on Bulbagarden since she's a well-respected user). That is why the need for another mascot is a necessity to bring the requirements for both sides of the fandom.

As others have said, I really don't see why the mascot has to be strong in the metagame. I mean, do you really expect Pat Patriot to run a perfect trwo-minute drill? No. Do you expect Hook-'em Horns to make the game-winning three-pointer? No. They're both fantastic mascots. However, if Game Freak came to us, the fans, and said they wanted us to pick a new mascot, I'd pick Togepi. The thing's adorable as flock and has star power.

Although out of the choices you provided I quite like Riolu and Ralts, Pikachu is fine remaining as the mascot.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

But the main focus has always been the OU metagame, which lacks diversity and needs to expand the # of Pokemon on list so there will be less Pokemon in NU. It's also unfair for players who want use a low tier like Charizard to go against a high tier like Ferrothorn,

The tiering system isn't some sort of popularity contest. What are you expecting? "Charizard has a lot of disadvantages and isn't that strong but people like it so we're making it OU"? As I already said, tiers exist in order to make the vast majority of Pokemon usable in an ultra-competitive field. We either assign Charizard to a low-ish tier where it can be used effectively, or it will never get used in competitive battling ever again.

And it's not really Game Freak's fault either. Where a Pokemon falls on a tier list is mostly beyond their control, because it can be hard to predict how the metagame will develop once a game is released.

even though there is an option to use low tier Pokemon in OU, because their analysis datas say something along the lines that the low tier Pokemon in question deserves to stay in the lower tiers as if they only prefer the Pokemon they have now in OU, which hints a form of elitism.

Is it elitism to say that a featherweight boxer probably shouldn't fight professionally against a super-heavyweight? By your definition apparently it is. But the sport is separated out into weight brackets, just like tiers, because both are talented sportsmen who deserve a fair fight in their own category.

You're talking as if Pokemon in the lower tiers are looked down on by the competitive community. They are not. In fact, here's a quote from Smogon's most recent analysis of my favorite Pokemon, the forever-NU Mawile.

Originally Posted by Smogon

After two generations of being completely ignored, Mawile finally has a chance to shine thanks to its Dream World ability, Sheer Force. Combined with an adequate movepool and priority moves, Mawile is now able to strike fear in all those who oppose it. Sadly, its stats are still sub-par and setting up can be difficult in a tier dominated by Pokemon who can easily take Mawile on before it sets up, such as Braviary, Magmortar, and Camerupt. However, don't let Mawile's gentle appearance deceive you, for if you underestimate it, Mawile will seize the advantage.

Now, does that sound insulting and condescending to you? Or does it sound like a sober, realistic analysis of a Pokemon that has stats way too low to compete with the big guns, but has a few unique options that make it interesting to use?

It seems like you'd prefer a metagame in which tier lists did not exist. But that's not the metagame we have. Given the sheer number and variety of Pokemon there are, tiers are an inevitability. It's just what happens when you get deep enough into a game. The mistake you're making is assuming tier lists have any sway outside the competitive field for which they were intended. For in-game teams or casual battling with friends, you can use basically whatever you like and have a shot at winning - and that's where the vast majority of the fandom is.

They'll think Pikachu is a strong Pokemon because of its mascot status but will soon realize that it and its evolved form, Raichu, are mediocre in the battlefield, which will result on its hatedom (just like Charizard due to its Stealth Rock weakness and Envoy's opinion being taken by word here on Bulbagarden since she's a well-respected user). That is why the need for another mascot is a necessity to bring the requirements for both sides of the fandom.

Charizard? Hatedom? Did you miss the part where I pointed out that Charizard is the most popular Pokemon despite it having been low-tier since forever?

You've repeatedly stated the belief that a once-loved Pokemon can be made unpopular in the fandom in general due to being put in a low tier. I have provided evidence to the contrary. If you're going to reply to me again, please do me the courtesy of actually considering that evidence.

I voted for Ralts because Ralts has parents :)

I'd love to see Pikachu evolve, seeing as Raichu is still a "cute" Pokémon. If Pikachu were to be completely replaced, I'd choose Clefairy.

Clefairy, not only because it was the original intended mascot, but because everyone needs a little more pink in their diet.

Actually, considering my recent blog about Zoroark, I would suggest Zorua as a decent mascot replacement. It's adorable, yet cool. It evolves into Zoroark who isn't bad in battle. Its design is certainly something that is likableI think (I don't like Pikachu, so I guess not everyone has to like the mascot). Both Zorua and Zoroark have a unique ability and their own signature move, both of which would be pretty cool for the mascot to have (Pika only has Volt Tackle but no special ability), since it makes it stand out in some way. Oh and it's a Dark-type. A Dark-type mascot would be pretty cool to have rather than something obvious like a Normal.

If I think of any more I might post back here at a later point. I think Zorua would be a pretty good replacement though.

Edit:

ralts?, togepi?, man these pokemon couldent hold up to a pokemon battle if thair life depended on it. the point of pikichu is ash dosent want it to evolve idk why but he says that pokemon dont need to evolve to be strong so none of the mascots on here would evolve. totally agree with darth zekrom. but if it had to change it should be a kanto/hoenn region pokemon to show that ash loves and would never seperate it just becouse he's in a diffrent region. id say no one could replace pikachu even though hes not the best he is still really strong will volt tackle and stuff and god knows hes better than 3/4 of the pokemon thair becouse he took on some insanly hard battles and came through.