Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play? - Page 2

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 42
Like Tree6Likes

Thread: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

  1. #16
    (-, - )…zzzZZZ Reila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,375
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jdog1020 View Post
    it also contradicts another main point of the game: to complete the Pokedex.
    That is far from being a main point of the series. Completing the Pokédex is nothing but an optional (and pointless, should I say) objective.

  2. #17
    Registered User Lelis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    76

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shushupu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jdog1020 View Post
    it also contradicts another main point of the game: to complete the Pokedex.
    That is far from being a main point of the series. Completing the Pokédex is nothing but an optional (and pointless, should I say) objective.
    Well, Gotta Catch 'Em All was a major selling point and a slogan for much of the beginning; I can't see that being ignored. While I certainly don't think that at this point of the Pokémon history completing the dex is a major goal for the majority of the players, this is mostly related to the fact that you can't get all the monsters in a single game. In order to complete you need to trade, and by doing so communication between different players is stimulated. So yeah, I'd say completing the dex is still core in the Pokémon universe because it involves other core mechanics.

    I understand that when you say pointless you are addressing this in terms of rewards the game gives you, but completing the daunting task that catching the huge number of monsters there are is fulfilling by itself for the players that do so.
    Last edited by Lelis; 4th August 2013 at 05:31 PM.

  3. #18
    (-, - )…zzzZZZ Reila's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,375
    Blog Entries
    59

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    Quote Originally Posted by Lelis View Post
    Well, Gotta Catch 'Em All was a major selling point and a slogan for much of the beginning; I can't see that being ignored. While I certainly don't think that at this point of the Pokémon history completing the dex is a major goal for the majority of the players, this is mostly related to the fact that you can't get all the monsters in a single game. In order to complete you need to trade, and by doing so communication between different players is stimulated. So yeah, I'd say completing the dex is still core in the Pokémon universe because it involves other core mechanics.

    I understand that when you say pointless you are addressing this in terms of rewards the game gives you, but completing the daunting task that catching the huge number of monsters there are is fulfilling by itself for the players that do so.
    It may be a major goal for the some players, but that doesn't make it one of the main objectives of the series. The slogan "Gotta Catch 'Em All" was dropped after Generation 1 for a reason. Also, I am not saying that wanting and trying to catch all Pokémon available is wrong, there is no such thing as "wrong way" to play (I do think, though, that it isn't the ideal way to play the games). In short, I don't think completing the dex is a major aspect of the games, it is just a completely optional side goal, unlike say, leveling up your team, beating the Gym Leaders, E4, rivals, random trainers and the champion. If anything, the various competitive aspects of the series is what I would call its "core aspect".

    That being said, I should have added that filling the dex is pointless to me. First of all, it isn't worth the effort, since there are no decent rewards for completing the dex and in second place, catching all Pokémon contradicts the basic idea I always have when I am playing a Pokémon game, which is the idea of me going through a journey with my Pokémon "friends". So, I only catch the ones I like or feel like using, the others, are just the others. If the world of Pokémon was real, catching every single species of Pokémon would be a really stupid idea, don't you think?

  4. #19
    You Are (Not) Fine Winterdaze's Avatar Moderator
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    2,568
    Blog Entries
    27

    Follow Winterdaze on Tumblr

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    I'm not sure where the idea that soloing is a more challenging method comes from. Because of the difference in power caused by the level difference between two Pokemon is non linear, over-levelling a single Pokemon is often the easiest and quickest way to win the game, which is why many children and novice players do it. Once you're many levels above the competition type matchups become pretty moot, especially if you have access to coverage moves. Though the new exp formula makes relying on a single Pokemon a little more difficult.

    It is a legitimate method of playing, though not one I particularly enjoy. Building a team filled with variety is half the fun for me, so over-levelling one Pokemon is pretty boring in comparison.
    Karamazov likes this.

  5. #20
    dot dot smile smudge Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Gender
    Genderless
    Location
    The Clouds
    Posts
    633
    Blog Entries
    75

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    Is there even a wrong way to play these games? I would consider hacking/cheating the only way to play wrongly. Anyways, I used to only raise my starter as a kid. It can be a bitch though, if you're not prepared for a certain gym. HM Slaves aren't a problem though, especially if you have the water starter. All you really need to do is catch certain Pokemon.
    claims ~ greninja ~ dark aura ~ stick ~ sail fossil ~ rest

    team black

  6. #21
    Registered User EmpoleonProd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    92

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    In my first game, Ruby, I had an amazing moment of success at the Champion, Steven. My Sceptile was level 99 and I just COULDN'T quite beat him, and as he leveled to 100 in the middle of a battle with Steven, he somehow won...

    But I don't play the games like that anymore. What I do is I usually have four Pokemon for the main part of the game, then I train up two more and have a full field of six for the Pokemon League.

  7. #22
    Registered User Mermaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    51
    Blog Entries
    3

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    I don't agree that it is hard to beat the game with one pokemon. Your only raising that one pokemon for usage in battles. There isn't a prevention of catching other pokemon for HM use which aren't being raised for battles. I did something similar to this when I played Crystal when I was younger. I picked Cyndaquil as my starter and it was my main pokemon. I beat the Gym Leaders and Elite Four using it. Even during the Kanto portion, my team only increased to 3 pokemon. In a funny way, this helped with the terrible level curve of Gen 2.

  8. #23
    Pi-rygon PiPie314's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    104

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    Admittedly this is a horrible way to play. The moment you have to fight a gym leader/elite four/champion who specializes in a type your single Pokemon is weak too YOUR SCREWED. That happened in Sapphire, my Blazkein was nearly lvl 60, while the rest of my team was 30-40. Next up: Wallace, water type gym leader, it didn't get to his gym D:.

    3.14159 26535 89793 23846 26433 83279 50288 41971 69399 37510 58209 74944 59230 78164....
    This is actually the line X + Y = 3.141

  9. #24
    The Darkest Magikarp Karpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    933
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    I think only the water starters have a good chance at making this work, and from personal experience I know this is very easily accomplished in Ruby and Sapphire by only using Swampert. Wartortle probably runs into some trouble in Celadon but would be fine after that. Feraligatr is most likely possible, I haven't tried but I don't see any major struggles aside from maybe your rival's Magneton. You can probably do it with all the starters in BW because of the difficulty level, and fuck the Sinnoh games, I've never finished one.

  10. #25
    Sometimes Quiet Joltik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Gender
    Female
    Location
    America
    Posts
    2,607
    Blog Entries
    63

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    When I first played Pokemon, I did not understand the idea of a well rounded team, and just used my starter. I was able to beat the game just fine, but later, when I started using a complete team, I enjoyed the game more, and felt "better" about beating the game. I also found a lot more fun in being able to send out the Pokemon that would be super effective against my foe.

  11. #26
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Norway
    Posts
    16

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    There's no defined way of playing the game. You play it either with a challenge or just playing it casually with no rules.

    If you're just playing the game to play it without any set rules, it's best to find pokemon with specific types and level them up equally. It may feel like it takes more time, but it will almost make you sure you'll never get stuck, where you have to grind for an hour or more (which is nothing but boring).

    If you want to play it with only the starter, not levelling the other pokemon, then you will encounter issues at some point, most of the time. For example, in HGSS you'd get the biggest issues beating Red, although, you could get super rich and buy a bunch of revives and let the hail take care of all of them, and hope to be able to take down Lapras. It would take SOME time.

    If you actually want to play with pretty much only one pokemon with some HM slaves, then you could also import an egg from another game (importing pokemon will give issues with disobedience). For example Riolu, it will eventually evolve into Lucario (unless you want to use about 1 hour to get the friendship up manually to get it a bit "quicker"). Lucario can learn powerful super-effective moves for any singular type, in addition to being sturdy with fighting/steel type and having good stats, you should be able to get through everything very quickly. Which is what I'm doing in my current playthrough of soulsilver.

    Pretty much everything you do and every decision you make changes the difficulty and time required to beat the game. All of this is up to you.

  12. #27
    The best Funktastic~!'s Avatar Bulbanews WriterBulbapedia Staff
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    48
    Follow Funktastic~! On Twitter
    Follow Funktastic~! on Tumblr

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    Quote Originally Posted by Karpi View Post
    I think only the water starters have a good chance at making this work, and from personal experience I know this is very easily accomplished in Ruby and Sapphire by only using Swampert. Wartortle probably runs into some trouble in Celadon but would be fine after that. Feraligatr is most likely possible, I haven't tried but I don't see any major struggles aside from maybe your rival's Magneton. You can probably do it with all the starters in BW because of the difficulty level, and fuck the Sinnoh games, I've never finished one.
    I've done it in Gen I-III with the first level of Fire Starters. It's really not hard at all because you're pretty much going to win through sheer power. The only real stumbling block is the first gym in Gen I and III since they're Rock-type gyms.

    But anyways, no it's not the wrong way to play, because there is no such thing as a wrong way to play a video game. If you're having fun then you're probably playing in a fine enough way.

  13. #28
    The Darkest Magikarp Karpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    933
    Blog Entries
    17

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    Now that I think about it, it would be pretty easy to Mono-Venusaur through FRLG because of Leech Seed and he will be so overleveled that he can outspeed everything with Sleep Powder.

  14. #29
    Snarker Extraordinaire Captain Blue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    32
    Blog Entries
    1

    Follow Captain Blue on Tumblr

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    One of my friends picked up SoulSilver a while after it came out, and he hadn't played a Pokemon game since Gen I. Out of curiosity I asked to see his party, and he had a level 40-something Feraligatr along with a bunch of other Pokemon down in the 20s. At first it seemed strange to me, but if he was comfortable playing that way, then I wasn't really in a position to ruin that by saying that having a balanced team of six is the "right" way to play.

    I mean, there's never really a right or wrong way to play Pokemon. You have so many different Mons to choose from, and it's entirely up to the player to decide how many Pokemon they want to use in their party, among other things. That said, using only one Pokemon is a legitimate thing: I've seen a lot of people do solo runs with Pokemon like Dunsparce, Murkrow, and even Sunkern. Some people use a single Pokemon as a challenge, others just do it because it's easy (due to the fact that the one Pokemon gets all the experience, and thus gets a lot stronger towards the later parts of the game).

    There are some people who like to use six Pokemon, there are some who like using one, and people who use any number of Mons between that (or even more, if they constantly keep rotating their party). When there's so many options to choose from, who's to say which one is "right"? If using only one Pokemon was "wrong", there'd be something in the games to prevent us from doing so (although I suppose Colosseum and XD have something along those lines, but I haven't played those very much).

  15. #30
    Registered User Muur's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male
    Location
    Bolton, England
    Posts
    472
    Follow Muur On Twitter
    Follow Muur on Tumblr Visit Muur's Youtube Channel

    Default Re: Is training only one Pokemon the wrong way to play?

    I think it is. If if goes down, you're screwed. (I don't believe in using revives in battle).

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •