Thread: In Game Pokemon: do you choose because you like them or they're 'strong'?

For me I usually just choose in game pokemon mostly because I like their design, or I've never used them in a team before. Sometimes though the competitive battler in me cringes when I go to choose something most people would class as 'weak' or 'useless.' Right now, I'm considering a jumpluff for my SS team just because I like the design and it has a decent support movepool; though the meager stats are putting me off (any advice there?)

So which do you go for? A mixture of both? What classes as a 'strong' pokemon for you when it comes to in game teams?

Discuss. :)

I always just pick the ones I like. I'm not bothered if they're strong or not. The only time I left Pokemon out of my party was when I caught a Minun in Ruby (I think it was Minun) and I wanted to use him but he was just too weak. Maybe I was just training him up wrong :/

I try stuff I haven't used before, but I generally take easy to get and powerful mons like staraptor in d/p/p or arcanine in fr/lg.

I love Cranidos and Buneary. Both are known to have horrible defenses, but I love to raise them and use them on my team. Put the two together and you get an awesome combination.

I use things that I like. I don't care what other's think of them.

The first time I go through a game I use the nuzlocke challenge, so I pick the first one that I choose.

The Pokémon whose aesthetics I favor usually feature designs that aim to intimidate or give a sense of strength, and these Pokémon often really are strong. The Dragon-types are an excellent example of this.

Those two criteria often overlap for me, so I don't have to choose...usually.

There are exceptions, one of the few of which is Conkeldurr. I actually dislike Gurdurr's and Conkeldurr's design, but I have chosen to put him on my team for sake of strength. In such cases, I would choose strength over looks, as I have with Conkeldurr.

I just go with the ones I like. If they're weak... well, that's what level-grinding is for.

I use what I like. I give every Pokemon a chance unless I genuinely can't stand to even look at them, but my teams are build in descending order of like as I go through re-plays.
Sometimes they're strong, too, like Mamoswine and Tyranitar.
Sometimes I find out they're pretty good after I decide I must have them, like Litwick.
Sometimes it doesn't matter, like Sunflora.

Aesthetically I tend to like Pokemon for weird reasons. Sometimes I MUST have them because they look like they have epic beards, like Pineco. Or they have the greatest derp faces ever, like Shellos and Slowpoke (however, for some reason I think Seel has a stupid-looking derp face). Sometimes they're squirrels, like Pachirisu and Emolga (I DIED when that Hiker's Emolga he trades you was named Minipete :D). Or the fact that Swinub is kind of like a guinea pig and you can't see its widdle legs under all that fur. Or they're really fat, like Snorlax (which, incidentally, is also very powerful) and especially Wailmer. Or they look like sirs, like Swalot. Or they look kind of rapey, like Sableye. Or their sprite animations say "Hi!" to me like Ducklett's does. Or they're just sooo cold huddled up in a little snow hat like Snorunt and I have to catch it and get it in a warm Pokeball. Or they have no arms, like Wooper, Diglett, and Oddish. Or the fact that Ludicolo is a pineapple duck. Or they just look so wierd it's cute, like Nosepass and Spoink.
I also tend to like the ones that are all majestic like Arcanine, Tauros, and Sawsbuck, or they're sleek and tough-looking like Houndoom and Lucario, or they're just cute like Teddiursa and Shuckle, which is slightly more normal xD

I usually pick the ones I like, but let's say that I can't decide on whether or not I want a Mareep or a Magnemite on my team. In that case I'd go on Bulbapedia and compare their moves and stats to see which one would be the best choice. I usually do that after I play the third version of a game (or sequel in BW's case) but for my first playthrough I pick the Pokemon I like.

A mixture of both. I choose strong Pokémon that I like. There are Pokémon whose designs I really like but I can't bring myself to use them because I am aware they are very weak, like Tropius. My Pokémon have to be strong and cool. In FireRed, my team was:

-Blastoise
-Raichu
-Alakazam
-Machamp
-Arcanine
-Aerodactyl and Dragonite in rotation.

In Emerald, my team was:

-Blaziken
-Gardevoir
-Ludicolo
-Manectric
-Glalie
-Salamence

In HeartGold, I had all of them in rotation:

-Feraligatr
-Ampharos
-Alakazam
-Magmortar
-Mamoswine
-Gengar
-Sudowoodo
-Dragonite
-Tyranitar

In Black:

-Samurott
-Conkeldurr
-Gothitelle
-Eelektross
-Chandelure
-Beartic

All of them are cool, and they're strong.

For in-game teams, I pick 6 Pokemon that I like. Whether they end up competitively useful or not depends on luck.

I always choose Pokemon I like and want to use. It dosent matter if it's considered "strong" or not, most stuff works in game, I will usually try to pick different Pokemon every time to give more of them a chance, and Ive come to really like some that Ive chosen this way that I may have previously overlooked, such as Scrafty. I dont care about the metagame at all so I dont base my teams on that, I like having more of an open mind. I will use legendaries at times such as Lugia just because I want to use them, I dont consider that cheap, just using what I like.

If I can (e.g. I'm not Nuzlocking), yeah, I choose them because I like them. Though, sometimes I like them because they're strong, but still.

I always choose the pokemon I haven't used before.
The first time I go through a game, I go blindly, so I don't have anything to go for the pokémon except if I like them and their concept.

But otherwise, I'll go for things that seem interesting to use for a playthrough. Like, they're "weak", or use a different strategy, or are just something nobody in their right mind would use in-game.


So basically, when I do choose what team I am using for a particular playthrough, I pick those I don't like (because I already played with them) and that are "weaker".