Thread: Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?

They're not overrated, it's justified because the type is hilariously unbalanced. Only one type resists them, and only weak to other Dragons and the worst type in the game? It's like GF is catering to the 12 year olds who love to use all Dragons who all have Hyper Beam.

I don't feel Dragons are overrated. On a personal note, I'm a huge dragon fan, and not just in the Pokemon world. On my dresser I must have at least 10 dragon statues, including a dragon Megatron. But that's another story.

Dragons are supposed to be mythological and rare, but also powerful. The Dragon-type is no different. It is one of the rarest types in the game, with only a handful of members outside of the legendary department. Dragons are supposed to be strong, as per their nature of origin. What person hasn't heard of a dragon being powerful in some fantasy or story book? It's their nature.

Anyway, the Dragon-type was designed to reflect that very mythological nature; strong, powerful, adaptable, but also rare and difficult to master. Dragons like Garchomp, Hydrogedon, Dragonite, and the legendary group like Dialga and Rayquaza reflect this description. So what if Dragon-types are only super effective against other dragons? That's why many of them have a sub-type, to expand their range. Dragon-types often have a wide selection of moves, too, so it can cover more ground. To balance this out, Dragon-types are difficult to raise, thus further reflecting the nature of the original creature.

Anyway, moving on. The reason Dragon-types are only super effective against itself is to balance out the fact that it is very powerful to begin with. But that's the point; dragons are powerful to begin with. So what if a STAB Dragon Claw doesn't do super effective damage against a Dark- or a Water-type, it will still hurt, regardless. You have to understand that it's the very nature of the beast to be immensely powerful.

If you ask me, Water-types are much more overrated. They are just too well balanced, offensively and defensively. They (usually) only have two weaknesses, though that can change pretty quickly, they can hit too many types with super effective moves, and they can learn a wide-range of moves. What's saying the Dragon-type isn't the same? Would you be complaining if Psychic- or Dark-types were this way? Water is far more overrated; it gets too much support and its balance it too perfect. Dragon-types are powerful in their raw state, yes, but they are much harder to perfect, and their weaknesses can hit much harder. Let's see how long a Dragonite will last against an Ice Beam. Not very long, if I know my typing well enough.

Again, you have to understand it's the very nature of the creature to be powerful, or at least pack enough punch to be useful. What legend, story, or myth about a dragon doesn't depict it as some sort of powerful being? But you must also understand that they are not invincible. If they were, then there would be no point in challenging a Dragon-type. Not one of the 17 types is invincible; they all have pros and cons. Dragon-types just tend to have more pros than cons. You have to see it from both sides, not just one or the other.

So, in short, no, Dragon-types are not overrated. They just simply reflect the very nature of the original creature they are based from; the dragon. Just like Fire-types reflect themselves as glass cannons (destructive but fragile, the very nature of fire itself), Dragon-types do the same thing.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

Then stop trying to underrate the less common types for not meeting competitive standards while most of us are trying to defend them about their niche. Datas have feelings too you know, according to KH Re: Coded.

I am not trying to underrate anything. I am saying what I see every day on Pokémon forums.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

But if any of those types were paired with one of the dominant types, including Dragon, you would probably make an exception.

And you are still missing my point. Funny, because as far as I know, you care a lot about the competitive scene, don't you? Again, let me explain: I don't care if the type is good or not for me to like, since two of my favorite types [flying and bug] are considered bad in the competitive scene. But it would be wrong to affirm that these two types are among the strong ones just because I like them. They are not. The best types in the games are the ones you mentioned early and unless Game Freak modifies the type chart, they will always be.

And no, I wouldn't make a exception, I don't decide what Pokémon is "good" or not.

Originally Posted by Ghetsis-Dennis

But wouldn't that make you hypocritical for what you said about Fire types?

Not really. When we are talking about the competitive scene only, Fire ends up being a underrated type. But when we talk about Pokémon in general, it is an overrated type. It is not a black or white situation. It is not the case of Bug, Rock and Poison. These three types are definitely underrated.

Originally Posted by CynthiaLover

I don't feel Dragons are overrated. On a personal note, I'm a huge dragon fan, and not just in the Pokemon world. On my dresser I must have at least 10 dragon statues, including a dragon Megatron. But that's another story.

Dragons are supposed to be mythological and rare, but also powerful. The Dragon-type is no different. It is one of the rarest types in the game, with only a handful of members outside of the legendary department. Dragons are supposed to be strong, as per their nature of origin. What person hasn't heard of a dragon being powerful in some fantasy or story book? It's their nature.

Anyway, the Dragon-type was designed to reflect that very mythological nature; strong, powerful, adaptable, but also rare and difficult to master. Dragons like Garchomp, Hydrogedon, Dragonite, and the legendary group like Dialga and Rayquaza reflect this description. So what if Dragon-types are only super effective against other dragons? That's why many of them have a sub-type, to expand their range. Dragon-types often have a wide selection of moves, too, so it can cover more ground. To balance this out, Dragon-types are difficult to raise, thus further reflecting the nature of the original creature.

Anyway, moving on. The reason Dragon-types are only super effective against itself is to balance out the fact that it is very powerful to begin with. But that's the point; dragons are powerful to begin with. So what if a STAB Dragon Claw doesn't do super effective damage against a Dark- or a Water-type, it will still hurt, regardless. You have to understand that it's the very nature of the beast to be immensely powerful.

If you ask me, Water-types are much more overrated. They are just too well balanced, offensively and defensively. They (usually) only have two weaknesses, though that can change pretty quickly, they can hit too many types with super effective moves, and they can learn a wide-range of moves. What's saying the Dragon-type isn't the same? Would you be complaining if Psychic- or Dark-types were this way? Water is far more overrated; it gets too much support and its balance it too perfect. Dragon-types are powerful in their raw state, yes, but they are much harder to perfect, and their weaknesses can hit much harder. Let's see how long a Dragonite will last against an Ice Beam. Not very long, if I know my typing well enough.

Again, you have to understand it's the very nature of the creature to be powerful, or at least pack enough punch to be useful. What legend, story, or myth about a dragon doesn't depict it as some sort of powerful being? But you must also understand that they are not invincible. If they were, then there would be no point in challenging a Dragon-type. Not one of the 17 types is invincible; they all have pros and cons. Dragon-types just tend to have more pros than cons. You have to see it from both sides, not just one or the other.

So, in short, no, Dragon-types are not overrated. They just simply reflect the very nature of the original creature they are based from; the dragon. Just like Fire-types reflect themselves as glass cannons (destructive but fragile, the very nature of fire itself), Dragon-types do the same thing.

Powerful or not, GF needs to give a few more resistances from Dragon to keep its raw power from literally destroying the game's balance (though I do agree with you about Water being OP). Sadly, Dragon outclasses Fire for not being a glass canon type (Dragon is basically a lightning bruiser type), giving another reason why my favorite type needs a bit of nerfing for other types to stand a chance.

From a purely battling standpoint, no they aren't. Dragons live up to and exceed the hype surrounding their fighting prowess, there is almost nothing to lose and everything to gain by being a Dragon type. The extent to which they are lauded can be annoying, but rest assured there's a damn good reason for it.

But what makes them overrated to me from a conceptual standpoint is that they were designed to be the best Pokemon in the game, so they don't get any particular props from me for that. Their superiority over other types feels very contrived, which has embittered me towards them I guess. People tend to worship Dragon types purely by virtue of them being dragons. I don't get that inherent appeal, since as far as mythical creatures go, I don't consider dragons to be particularly interesting.

Originally Posted by Winterdaze

From a purely battling standpoint, no they aren't. Dragons live up to and exceed the hype surrounding their fighting prowess, there is almost nothing to lose and everything to gain by being a Dragon type. The extent to which they are lauded can be annoying, but rest assured there's a damn good reason for it.

But what makes them overrated to me from a conceptual standpoint is that they were designed to be the best Pokemon in the game, so they don't get any particular props from me for that. Their superiority over other types feels very contrived, which has embittered me towards them I guess. People tend to worship Dragon types purely by virtue of them being dragons. I don't get that inherent appeal, since as far as mythical creatures go, I don't consider dragons to be particularly interesting.

I think that's my thing, too, partially. I feel like people go so crazy over them that they overlook other good Pokemon. I mean, objectively they're the best. But that's how they were made...and if you were programmed for perfection can you really, truly be great? Whereas someone mentioned using Scizor...combining one of the weaker types with Steel (which I personally think has plenty of its own problems) in a competitive environment. I don't know...there's just more heart in trying to win with unexpected Pokemon (even if that doesn't happen very often).

Originally Posted by CynthiaLover

I don't feel Dragons are overrated. On a personal note, I'm a huge dragon fan, and not just in the Pokemon world. On my dresser I must have at least 10 dragon statues, including a dragon Megatron. But that's another story.

Dragons are supposed to be mythological and rare, but also powerful. The Dragon-type is no different. It is one of the rarest types in the game, with only a handful of members outside of the legendary department. Dragons are supposed to be strong, as per their nature of origin. What person hasn't heard of a dragon being powerful in some fantasy or story book? It's their nature.

Anyway, the Dragon-type was designed to reflect that very mythological nature; strong, powerful, adaptable, but also rare and difficult to master. Dragons like Garchomp, Hydrogedon, Dragonite, and the legendary group like Dialga and Rayquaza reflect this description. So what if Dragon-types are only super effective against other dragons? That's why many of them have a sub-type, to expand their range. Dragon-types often have a wide selection of moves, too, so it can cover more ground. To balance this out, Dragon-types are difficult to raise, thus further reflecting the nature of the original creature.

Anyway, moving on. The reason Dragon-types are only super effective against itself is to balance out the fact that it is very powerful to begin with. But that's the point; dragons are powerful to begin with. So what if a STAB Dragon Claw doesn't do super effective damage against a Dark- or a Water-type, it will still hurt, regardless. You have to understand that it's the very nature of the beast to be immensely powerful.

If you ask me, Water-types are much more overrated. They are just too well balanced, offensively and defensively. They (usually) only have two weaknesses, though that can change pretty quickly, they can hit too many types with super effective moves, and they can learn a wide-range of moves. What's saying the Dragon-type isn't the same? Would you be complaining if Psychic- or Dark-types were this way? Water is far more overrated; it gets too much support and its balance it too perfect. Dragon-types are powerful in their raw state, yes, but they are much harder to perfect, and their weaknesses can hit much harder. Let's see how long a Dragonite will last against an Ice Beam. Not very long, if I know my typing well enough.

Again, you have to understand it's the very nature of the creature to be powerful, or at least pack enough punch to be useful. What legend, story, or myth about a dragon doesn't depict it as some sort of powerful being? But you must also understand that they are not invincible. If they were, then there would be no point in challenging a Dragon-type. Not one of the 17 types is invincible; they all have pros and cons. Dragon-types just tend to have more pros than cons. You have to see it from both sides, not just one or the other.

So, in short, no, Dragon-types are not overrated. They just simply reflect the very nature of the original creature they are based from; the dragon. Just like Fire-types reflect themselves as glass cannons (destructive but fragile, the very nature of fire itself), Dragon-types do the same thing.

That is very well put. Quite philosophical; I can respect that take on the Dragon-type. You know, appreciating the philosophy behind dragons instead of just wanting them for stats. They are challenging to raise and difficult to shape. They're like Bonsai trees;you have the people who think they're neat and just get them and do what they have to for a desirable result, and the people who take the time to shape and raise them and come to appreciate their attributes on a different level.

IMO they're waay overrated....I can't even describe how much I despise Dragonite,Salamance and Garchomp. The only dragon type pokemon I like are flygon and altaria.I like Altaria since I saw Winona's one in the anime and I like Flygon because it's part ground type.I also can't stand legendary dragons.

Originally Posted by metalamor

I think that's my thing, too, partially. I feel like people go so crazy over them that they overlook other good Pokemon. I mean, objectively they're the best. But that's how they were made...and if you were programmed for perfection can you really, truly be great? Whereas someone mentioned using Scizor...combining one of the weaker types with Steel (which I personally think has plenty of its own problems) in a competitive environment. I don't know...there's just more heart in trying to win with unexpected Pokemon (even if that doesn't happen very often).

In competitive circles, Scizor is far from "unexpected." In fact, it is one of the most "expected" Pokemon you can come up with. In contrast, Altaria and Druddigon, two Dragon types, would be quite unexpected in an OU team.

I wasn't thinking xD I know Scizor is fairly common but I was just trying to come up with a quick example of a type combo that has a fair defensive flaw. Someone was kind enough to post some information on the metagame on my page yesterday and I am just now catching up on the competitive side of things.

Maybe unexpected wasn't the best word...I think I meant utilizing types that aren't considered great to win as opposed to using more statistically sound types. Like Venomoth (I see that it is still a competitor like it was the last time I dabbled in strategic teams xD). Or (I was surprised to learn that it was considered competitive) Abomasnow, which is a combination of the two worst types in the game. I love that bug types have gotten better moves and steel types have been expanded. I guess it was easier to prepare for opponents when there was only a third of the current Pokedex available and no abilities xD

I can see the Altaria and Druddigon not being competitive; I had an Altaria once and it was terrible, even in-game. I remember once I had a Dragonite (the only time I bothered to level one up, just to see what the fuss was about) and it got hammered every time by a friend's freaking Snorlax that had Rest-Sleep Talk-Blizzard-Hyper Beam. But I've never liked competitive battling. The only thing I like about it is the fact that you'll get the face eaten right off of you if you go in with an all-damage blitzkrieg-style team. I like that what some people consider "junk moves" in-game are so common. But a lot of my favorite moves and Pokemon aren't suited for it, and the chance-effect moves are useless to me because I have the worst luck with anything chance.

I hate dragons because they got unfair stats compared to the rest of the other pokemons. They're also very difficult to raise and very rare to get one in the first place. Heck, going up against a dragon-type specialist, be it gym leader or E4 OR champion, is hard as hell. It took me ages just to get a Deino in Victory Road and I ended up boxing it because it required so many levels to evolve it, even though you can get it late in the game at an already high level. Drake from the Hoenn Elite4 gave me a traumatic experience by dragon dancing his pokemons - Altaria, Flygon, Salamance - and KO-ing me. I dislike Dragonite and I think it is way too overexposed.

They should've given the dragons at least one or two more weakness.

Dragons completely rule the metagame. I don't think they are OP. Heck, some dragons are not in OU (Flygon, Druddigon).

But really, the real winners of the metagame are the steel-types, mostly the bug-steel types.

They're not overrated. They deserve their praise - it's the second strongest type in the game (after Steel), and only two Dragon Pokemon fail to be in the higher tiers, being Altaria and Druddigon - I don't think there's any other type that only has a couple weak links.

Originally Posted by Pidgeot

They're not overrated. They deserve their praise - it's the second strongest type in the game (after Steel), and only two Dragon Pokemon fail to be in the higher tiers, being Altaria and Druddigon - I don't think there's any other type that only has a couple weak links.

You forgot Flygon, who is UU.

Originally Posted by Dark Blueberry

Heck, going up against a dragon-type specialist, be it gym leader or E4 OR champion, is hard as hell. It took me ages just to get a Deino in Victory Road and I ended up boxing it because it required so many levels to evolve it, even though you can get it late in the game at an already high level. Drake from the Hoenn Elite4 gave me a traumatic experience by dragon dancing his pokemons - Altaria, Flygon, Salamance - and KO-ing me. .

They are AWFUL in-game. They take longer to get really good than it does to beat the game. You either spend a huge amount of time grinding or you have a slot that could go to a more efficient Pokemon. At least that's my experience. The only slot I would save for a dragon in-game is if it's a personal favorite. Dragons are mostly upper-level combatants. If you know how to use them and what you're doing, though, you can get some really powerful Pokemon. It takes a great amount of patience. I'm still not a fan of them, though. I think...well, what I think is posted all over the thread xD

Originally Posted by metalamor

They are AWFUL in-game. They take longer to get really good than it does to beat the game. You either spend a huge amount of time grinding or you have a slot that could go to a more efficient Pokemon. At least that's my experience. The only slot I would save for a dragon in-game is if it's a personal favorite. Dragons are mostly upper-level combatants. If you know how to use them and what you're doing, though, you can get some really powerful Pokemon. It takes a great amount of patience. I'm still not a fan of them, though. I think...well, what I think is posted all over the thread xD

Lucky Eggs are your friend. I used mine on a Deino, which I nicknamed it as Ghidorah, and I managed to get my Hydreigon in no less than 3 days.