What is your unpopular video game opinion?

[Tryhard]

27 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I have spoken with a lot of Souls players about my grievances with the series, and one thing I often hear can be summed up as, "Yeah; the later games leaned entirely onto the r1-and-roll; maybe you'd like DS1 or Demon's Souls?"

I have no idea why they would say this other than the game speed generally becoming faster with the newer games. Yes, Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3 would let you spam roll a lot quicker, but there was never any major distinction between Demon's Souls and Elden Ring about how the base gameplay is, other than DS1 and DeS perhaps being more lenient on you due to the slowed-down pace of the games, but you will still be punished severely if you do not block/dodge/position yourself correctly. Sekiro is different, but I personally would not even consider that to be compared to the rest.

I guess I will say that Demon's Souls in particular does have a lot more bosses that are more, let's say, "puzzle oriented" in how you defeat them. In that regard it likely has more in common with certain Zelda bosses (attacking weakpoints, using bombs etc). Personally these bosses never did anything for me, and in fact those types of bosses generally are poorly received by the fanbase in general that don't like 'gimmick bosses' (there's a couple in DS3 as well). I would also consider Demon's Souls to be the easiest game in the series by far. Unironically the fanbase has always preferred the bosses where you roll and r1 spam against a big enemy (1v1, generally), and shunned any bosses where you might have to do more than just straight up fight something in melee combat. I couldn't tell you why that is.

For me it's kinda like going into playing a Bethesda game and then expecting the combat to be stellar - it just ain't gonna happen. The strengths lie elsewhere.

10 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Okay, here's an unpopular opinion. Souls is just Monster Hunter for people who need to be reassured that they are in fact the leetest of gamers.

It was more prevalent around the time DS1 came out but the whole 'git gud' mentality was something that was always annoying, and a reason to never bother with the fanbase as in most cases.

I never really got into Monster Hunter, though.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Tryhard

[Fabulously Olivier]

2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

It was more prevalent around the time DS1 came out but the whole 'git gud' mentality was something that was always annoying, and a reason to never bother with the fanbase as in most cases.

Oh, no. It's still prevalent and annoying now, and I consider them to be among the worst fanbases, alongside the likes of such notorious bases as League of Legends and Sonic.

 

(That said, right now, it's the Sonic one that's annoying me the most as there is a rather persistent redditor who keeps rolling alt accounts to send me lovely death threats and harassment for saying I didn't like Sonic once. But I digress).

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

48 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Unironically the fanbase has always preferred the bosses where you roll and r1 spam against a big enemy (1v1, generally), and shunned any bosses where you might have to do more than just straight up fight something in melee combat. I couldn't tell you why that is.

I certainly don´t enjoy the feeling of getting shoehorned into using the special wepon that is super strong against this specific boss that is also conveniently placed close to or in the boss arena.

Sure you can fight Yhorm 1v1 but we are talking about a 28k HP (which is 3k short of being double that of either Midir/Gael), resistant to most things kinda guy.

[Fabulously Olivier]

So, here's an opinion that is probably only unpopular in specific circles...

 

A few meaningful skill choices is WAY more impactful than a bunch of small ones.

 

Choosing my skills and runes in Diablo 3 is deeper and more flexible in practice than assigning stat points and skill ranks in Diablo 2.

 

Marvel Heroes was better AFTER its controversial Omega update that killed the game shifted from the skill-ranks system to branching skill choices. People just gave it flak because you can never overhaul an existing system without angering the community, even if the new one is loads better.

[vanguard333]

4 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Okay, here's an unpopular opinion. Souls is just Monster Hunter for people who need to be reassured that they are in fact the leetest of gamers.

Incidentally, I vastly prefer Monster Hunter over the Souls games. I played all the way through Monster Hunter Rise and the Sunbreak DLC and I really enjoyed it.

I know that the monsters in Monster Hunter are meant to be fought many times while Souls bosses are meant to be fought once, making comparing them an unfair comparison, but I really enjoy the amount of thought that goes into each monster fight: the moment-to-moment combat is very simple (with the exception of combos, which I am not good at), but there are lots of things a player can learn and use to gain an advantage, even if, most of the time, that method of gaining an advantage is breaking a specific monster part.

 

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

For me it's kinda like going into playing a Bethesda game and then expecting the combat to be stellar - it just ain't gonna happen. The strengths lie elsewhere.

I wouldn't go into a Bethesda game expecting anything to be stellar, since it just isn't going to happen.

 

4 hours ago, Tryhard said:

I have no idea why they would say this other than the game speed generally becoming faster with the newer games. Yes, Bloodborne and Dark Souls 3 would let you spam roll a lot quicker, but there was never any major distinction between Demon's Souls and Elden Ring about how the base gameplay is, other than DS1 and DeS perhaps being more lenient on you due to the slowed-down pace of the games, but you will still be punished severely if you do not block/dodge/position yourself correctly. Sekiro is different, but I personally would not even consider that to be compared to the rest.

I guess I will say that Demon's Souls in particular does have a lot more bosses that are more, let's say, "puzzle oriented" in how you defeat them. In that regard it likely has more in common with certain Zelda bosses (attacking weakpoints, using bombs etc). Personally these bosses never did anything for me, and in fact those types of bosses generally are poorly received by the fanbase in general that don't like 'gimmick bosses' (there's a couple in DS3 as well). I would also consider Demon's Souls to be the easiest game in the series by far. Unironically the fanbase has always preferred the bosses where you roll and r1 spam against a big enemy (1v1, generally), and shunned any bosses where you might have to do more than just straight up fight something in melee combat. I couldn't tell you why that is.

It's not just game speed; as I understand, in Dark Souls 1, armour was meaningful, while armour in Dark Souls 3 may as well be purely cosmetic. I did two playthroughs of Dark Souls 3 before giving up: one as a knight, another as a cleric, and there was no significant difference in defense whatsoever. There are also bosses like the Pontiff in Dark Souls 3 with attacks meant specifically to throw off a player's roll timing, only for rolling to still be how to defeat the boss.

As I understand it, certain "gimmick bosses", like the Tower Knight, are loved by the fanbase, while others, like the Bed of Chaos, are loathed. But yeah; I have seen quite a few fans who hate all "gimmick bosses".

There's a video I've seen that's critical of the direction the Souls games have been heading (bear in mind that the video released before Sekiro and Elden Ring), made by a fan of the series, and it's a video I find very interesting. I wonder what you think of it:

Quote

 

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by vanguard333

[Tryhard]

3 hours ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

I certainly don´t enjoy the feeling of getting shoehorned into using the special wepon that is super strong against this specific boss that is also conveniently placed close to or in the boss arena.

Sure you can fight Yhorm 1v1 but we are talking about a 28k HP (which is 3k short of being double that of either Midir/Gael), resistant to most things kinda guy.

The entire fight is sort of a reference to a fight in Demon's Souls, all the way down to the weapon you use. I know that people don't like the Yhorm fight for obvious reasons but there is a reason they keep trying to add at least 1-2 "gimmick fights" in every game (in Elden Ring too), because they are trying not for every boss just to be a straight up 1v1 fight with no intricacies.

Is it a great boss? No, but even if it was better, people would still complain about it being a "gimmick fight" in nature.

I was also thinking of Ancient Wyvern, where the "boss fight" is more of an arena gauntlet instead of an actual boss.

41 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

I wouldn't go into a Bethesda game expecting anything to be stellar, since it just isn't going to happen.

Then I guess I can say an unpopular opinion or at least one that is unpopular in certain parts of the internet: Bethesda are unfairly maligned, on the internet at least.

Bethesda unironically are fantastic at world-building and lore development. The vast lore of the Elder Scrolls series is proof of that. Very few games have a world background that is developed as significantly. They also are making games that almost no-one else tries to make. The entire genre of first+third person open world rpgs is one that is severely lacking, and in terms of mainstream releases, there are basically very few other games that fit the mold with the exception of Obsidian doing The Outer Worlds, which was generally considered mediocre. Simply put, they have almost no competition in the games they make because making games with that scale is not what most AAA developers/publishers want to do. I don't necessarily think this a good thing, because a lack of competition makes them lazy, but I will say: almost no developers even try and dare to make the type of games they make (and a type of game I enjoy).

What Bethesda struggle with is well known, especially technical aspects and main story writing. And their problems are known when they try to act like a scummy publisher and put out things like Fallout 76. But when they actually try to make a type of game like Skyrim or Fallout (3 or 4, I know there is people that dislike 4 because it leaned away from RPG elements) again (whether Starfield will turn out this way I don't know), they actually will put out something worthwhile, at least to quite a few people. There's a reason why Skyrim remains, like the most modded game ever, if there wasn't people willing to play their games, people willing to spend a huge amount of time and effort modding their games would also not exist.

41 minutes ago, vanguard333 said:

It's not just game speed; as I understand, in Dark Souls 1, armour was meaningful, while armour in Dark Souls 3 may as well be purely cosmetic. I did two playthroughs of Dark Souls 3 before giving up: one as a knight, another as a cleric, and there was no significant difference in defense whatsoever. There are also bosses like the Pontiff in Dark Souls 3 with attacks meant specifically to throw off a player's roll timing, only for rolling to still be how to defeat the boss.

As I understand it, certain "gimmick bosses", like the Tower Knight, are loved by the fanbase, while others, like the Bed of Chaos, are loathed. But yeah; I have seen quite a few fans who hate all "gimmick bosses".

There's a video I've seen that's critical of the direction the Souls games have been heading (bear in mind that the video released before Sekiro and Elden Ring), made by a fan of the series, and it's a video I find very interesting. I wonder what you think of it:

I've seen this video before, I'm not a fan of its reasoning, or the other video this person did bashing DS2. They are right that the later games are less methodical and plodding because they are sped up, but if they also dislike Bloodborne for this reason, then yeah that's definitely an unpopular opinion of their own considering how much BB is loved.

DS1 can certainly feel very slow, and the enemies are much less aggresive than later games. I remember beating the game very easily by just walking backwards and casting magic the whole game - almost no enemies are aggressive enough to really challenge you and it made everything a breeze. I don't particularly view this as a good thing.

I've never heard that about armour in DS1/DS3. I never noticed that armour was "just cosmetic" in DS3, heavier armours did tend to help damage reduction at the very least. Now if they have a problem with the poise systems, then that is another matter. Bloodborne, yes the armours were all cosmetics and had pretty minor changes to the stats. If anything you can still die very easily in DS1 even in heavy armour if you're taking multiple hits.

Some people have criticised the whole 'delayed attacks' thing in Elden Ring as well, and yes, a lot of the main bosses in there will delay certain attacks purposely to throw off your roll timing. I guess they felt as though it would be a way for panic mashing the roll button not being the way to avoid most boss attacks as often in ER you have to delay a roll on purpose to correctly dodge an attack. I personally never minded this although I feel as though this is one of the more common complaints about ER.

Something like Tower Knight might be more "tolerated" because you actually do attack something, but generally people very much dislike anything where you have to use a specific weapon (Storm King), or you hit some objects and the boss just dies (Dragon God).

Edited July 7, 2023 by Tryhard

[Fabulously Olivier]

My unpopular opinion is that Bethesda's games have always been mediocre. Even before Fallout 76 made it popular to hate on them. They all have terrible combat. They are all poorly balanced. They all have shallow RPG build systems. They all have more bugs than the beds of a 1 star hotel. 

 

We looked past it back then because no one else was doing singleplayer open world rpgs of that scope, but now they're a dime a dozen, and Bethesda is no more interesting than the likes of Ubisoft.

[Tryhard]

15 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

We looked past it back then because no one else was doing singleplayer open world rpgs of that scope, but now they're a dime a dozen, and Bethesda is no more interesting than the likes of Ubisoft.

To make it clear, stuff like BOTW is not the same as what I would consider an open world rpg. 

Not only are most of the games considered "open world" games in modern times almost exclusively third person, they almost always only have very light rpg elements, probably focusing on skill trees more than other forms of character progresion, more like open world action games than an actual rpg (Horizon, Ghosts of Tsushima, BOTW, etc). They will usually have a pre-determined protagonist instead of having any sort of character creation. This is not to say that they are bad games at all. 

Games like Dragon's Dogma is generally what I mean (and even then, its world was quite limited), in which it is far more invested in the RPG elements. Which is also a very good game. Under that criteria, I have seen far more rpg-lite open world games in recent times than not.

Edited July 7, 2023 by Tryhard

[Fabulously Olivier]

2 minutes ago, Tryhard said:

Not only are most of the games considered "open world" games in modern times almost exclusively third person

As they should be. 

 

Followup unpopular opinion. First person is incredibly limiting for games, and WILL lower the quality of melee combat, even if there is also a third person option. It's largely to blame for the weakness of Bethesda's melee and magic combat.

[vanguard333]

3 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Followup unpopular opinion. First person is incredibly limiting for games, and WILL lower the quality of melee combat, even if there is also a third person option. It's largely to blame for the weakness of Bethesda's melee and magic combat.

Yeah; first-person is fine for a game that's purely about ranged combat, like Metroid Prime (and even then, the perspective hinders platforming); for any game with melee combat, it should be third-person.

I was interested in the game Kingdom Come: Deliverance since I'm a medieval history enthusiast, but the first-person perspective made me uninterested in the game.

[Fabulously Olivier]

1 hour ago, vanguard333 said:

Yeah; first-person is fine for a game that's purely about ranged combat, like Metroid Prime (and even then, the perspective hinders platforming); for any game with melee combat, it should be third-person.

I was interested in the game Kingdom Come: Deliverance since I'm a medieval history enthusiast, but the first-person perspective made me uninterested in the game.

Even for shooters, my personal preference remains third person, because the ability to know one's position is important to me, and these games tend to be better at mobility. But yeah, first person is fine for shooters.

 

As far as games I'd otherwise have been interested in, but passed on because of the perspective... Cyberpunk 2077.

[vanguard333]

26 minutes ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

Even for shooters, my personal preference remains third person, because the ability to know one's position is important to me, and these games tend to be better at mobility. But yeah, first person is fine for shooters.

 

As far as games I'd otherwise have been interested in, but passed on because of the perspective... Cyberpunk 2077.

I see. I myself wouldn't know, as I don't like shooters in general; the main reason I like the Metroid Prime trilogy is that it's more of an adventure game than a shooter; Nintendo even described the games as "first-person adventure".

Oh, yeah; I was never interested in Cyberpunk 2077; partly because of the first-person perspective, but also because something about it just seemed off that I couldn't put into words; of course, looking back, that "off" feeling was probably me noticing the early warning signs that the game lacked clear direction and was going to overpromise, go through a development nightmare, and underdeliver.

[Tryhard]

Cyberpunk is at least in a much better state than it was at release, and will probably be better when the DLC releases. There was too many technical issues on release and it never should have been released in the state it was, that made the entire release a farce but the game itself was not bad quality.

I'm pretty sure it was said in pre-release interviews at the time but the style that were going for was the same as "Immersive Sim" games as inspiration - games like Deus Ex, System/BioShock, Dishonored, Prey, Thief, etc. Which were always first person in nature, even if they were shooter RPGs that included melee weapons.

Personally I never saw a problem with that style since I played and enjoyed games like Deus Ex and System Shock especially.

Edited July 8, 2023 by Tryhard

[Parrhesia]

Ace Attorney's pun names and protracted breakdown animations are stupid indulgences that actively hold the series back, and it's deeply cringeworthy that they've only been ramped up and up over the years. Weirdly, the AAI2 fanslation got the balance right.

[Imuabicus der Fertige]

On 7/7/2023 at 6:24 PM, Fabulously Olivier said:

Okay, here's an unpopular opinion. Souls is just Monster Hunter for people who need to be reassured that they are in fact the leetest of gamers.

Monster Hunter, the Darks Souls of Stardew Valley.

On 7/7/2023 at 10:43 PM, vanguard333 said:

It's not just game speed; as I understand, in Dark Souls 1, armour was meaningful, while armour in Dark Souls 3 may as well be purely cosmetic. I did two playthroughs of Dark Souls 3 before giving up: one as a knight, another as a cleric, and there was no significant difference in defense whatsoever.

Those complaints are in regards to the poise system - in DS1 you can get enough poise to not get staggered by many attacks even some bosses, whereas DS3 doesn´t have that and unless your weapon swing has hyperarmor (most likely gotten from using big wlos weapons) you can get staggered by everything - in conclusion either positioning or dodging are more important.

Concerning defense, I don´t entirely understand it but:

There´s 2 kinda defenses, Defense and Absorption. Absorption reduces damage by a % (Cleric around 10%, Knight around 25% for physical damage). Defense I don´t really understand, but it´s least effective against attacks that deal a lot of or very little damage and more effective against attacks with middling damage (I´ve seen it described as a bell curve). And then there is the fact that physical damage is split in at least 3 categories and then you have 4 elemental damage categories.

On 7/7/2023 at 10:43 PM, vanguard333 said:

There are also bosses like the Pontiff in Dark Souls 3 with attacks meant specifically to throw off a player's roll timing, only for rolling to still be how to defeat the boss.

Pontiff can almost entirely be parried. At least phase 1, phase 2 is more difficult by virtue of enemy backup, though since it´s a copy of Pontiff, it too can be parried.

On 7/7/2023 at 10:43 PM, vanguard333 said:

like the Bed of Chaos, are loathed.

Just did that thing, the reason it´s hated probably being that it can just swipe you into a gravity death. And it has a 2 minute run to the goddamn arena. Fuck that thing.

On 7/7/2023 at 11:15 PM, Tryhard said:

there is a reason they keep trying to add at least 1-2 "gimmick fights" in every game (in Elden Ring too), 1) because they are trying not for every boss just to be a straight up 1v1 fight with no intricacies.

Is it a great boss? No, but even if it was better, people would still complain about it being a "gimmick fight" in nature.

2) I was also thinking of Ancient Wyvern, where the "boss fight" is more of an arena gauntlet instead of an actual boss.

1) That´s why they put 2-3 enemies in many arenas in ER. 😛

2) Yeah, but you do have the option of 1v1ing Ancient Wyvern without turning it into a 1hour endeavour. I don´t think you can fight Snake/Rykard without the Serpenthunter, even with Comet Azure and Cerulean Flask cheese.

[Fabulously Olivier]

Arkham Knight is a bad game. It basically gatekeeps a tiny portion of the glorious Arkham Asylum/City experience behind way, way too many shitty Batmobile segments. Basically all of the side content is races or barely functional car physics puzzles. You can't explore the city without running into drones that have to be killed with the bat tank. And even the main story frequently interrupts the fun to have you go back to the Forza mines. And the car controls like shit. It's just way too fast and has no handling.

 

Basically, I fucking hate this game, and I dislike people who try to downplay how much the Batmobile actually factors into/ruins the game.

[vanguard333]

@Fabulously Olivier I've never played the Arkham games, but I can believe that Arkham Knight is bad; the thing I remember most about the game was seeing the game devs and publisher hype up the titular villain, the Arkham Knight, as a brand new villain they hope would one day become part of Batman's Rouge Gallery, only for me to later hear a non-spoilers review of the game briefly describe the Arkham Knight and immediately think, "It's Jason Todd; isn't it?"

Spoiler

You can imagine how much I wanted to facepalm when I found out I was right. They basically just redid Under the Red Hood but replaced "Red Hood" with "Arkham Knight".

 

1 hour ago, Imuabicus der Fertige said:

Pontiff can almost entirely be parried. At least phase 1, phase 2 is more difficult by virtue of enemy backup, though since it´s a copy of Pontiff, it too can be parried.

Just did that thing, the reason it´s hated probably being that it can just swipe you into a gravity death. And it has a 2 minute run to the goddamn arena. Fuck that thing.

I see. I never go to Pontiff, so thanks for the information.

I see. It sounds like it's just a badly-designed boss. I'm pretty sure even a one-on-one-fight boss that could easily swipe the player character into a gravity death would be a terrible boss, yet I see Bed of Chaos used by hardcore fans online as a reason the series shouldn't have "gimmick bosses".

[henrymidfields]

Another Pokemon opinion, in response to a Youtube video that came out:

I never, ever, ever, understood why people treat Whitney of all things as the Pokemon's answer to Kaptain K Rool or a Dark Souls Boss. Ever. It's like people become collective noobs against her when the solutions against her are still fairly obvious. Her Miltank's Attract? Use a female Pokemon. There's a female Machop that gains bonus EXP in the same city! Even better, catch a Female Graveler that resists both her Rollout and Stomp, and has 115 Defense (one of the highest you can get in the early game) - which is what I did. You're an idiot for not using a Geodude/Graveler anyway (Not using an Onix, I can understand, considering the disbedience issue.) because Rock is supereffective against all of Bugsy's Pokemon and Silver's Zubat line - and in GSC, also Silver's and Morty's Ghastly line because of their part-Poison type. And if you're using the Chikorita line, also Silver's Cyndaquil line too. Speaking of the Chikorita line, although it comes with the caveat of being Female (or switch in when Miltank starts doing Rollout), that's another option for stalling, as that line has comparatively high Defense of 60-80 with Reflect (which lasts for 5 turns, and doesn't disappear after a switch), Poison Powder, and Synthesis.

Speaking of her Rollout? It has a 10% chance of missing, the first two hits only have 30-60BP, and that stupid cow's locked-in with that for 5 turns. Just spam accuracy lowering moves: Sand Attack from any flying Pokemon, TM Mud Slap you get from Falkner, HM Flash for your HM Slave or your Mareep line. TM Dig can also help in interrupting Rollout, plus you can combine that with a Wooper (or Quagsire once it hits Lv 20, with its stat boosts) you can get earlier for type resistance, or the Graveler which I mentioned previously.

Stomp? Okay, I can see how that might be annoying, but even that has at least two options: Mareep has Static in HGSS and Thunder Wave in both versions, so even a Lum Berry can only do so much. For GSC, use the Ghastly Line to shut Miltank Down with Hypnosis; Miltank doesn't have Lum Berry. Also, Geodude/Graveler - again, see above. And others I may not know of.

Finally, once you get Headbutt, there's also Heracross in HGSS. Or set up Fury Cutter you get from Bugsy with Clefairy, and 1-2HKO Miltank once that comes out.

Like, this isn't the first time people had such a beefgate. Falkner and Bugsy were bad for Chikorita users. In fact, I say Falkner was worse, because he also countered the obvious solutions (Geodude/Onix - and even Mareep if that was accessible at that point) with Mud Slap, something you'd not expect for a 1st boss of many game. Brock and Misty were also pretty firm beefgates for Charmander/Pikachu starters too - I chose Bulbasaur and caught a Pikachu for the latter, and even then her Starmie was not a pushover. But neither were unreasonably hard, once I found the solutions. Even Lance in GSC, I beat him in the first try - Thunderbolt or Thunder Punch against Gyarados, Ice Beam or Ice Punch against his Dragonites, and any old water Pokemon against Charizard or Aerodactyl (and many Water Pokemon can also learn Ice Beam and/or Ice Punch). Elesa in BW gave me more trouble - thanks to her Pokemon actually addressing BOTH of her type disadvantages, but even there, I was kicking myself because I didn't catch Sandile (one of the best Pokemon you get at that point) when that typings, movepools, and its starts that are very high for that part of the game (The fact that I struggled to take down a wild Sandile should have been an obvious clue that it was a keeper!!!) would have saved me a lot of trouble. I need to retry this myself, but I now see even Elesa's not that unreasonable.

Back to Whitney. We've already got at least two options that are very obvious, and more that would also be reasonably obvious if we stop and re-think our strategy. I played GSC when I was 10, and I beat Whitney on my first try - with a female Machop and a female Graveler. I didn't even know Miltank had Attract or Milk Drink for a long time. She is really not that hard; this so-called difficulty speaks more about people not doing their homework, and same people mis-remembering the difficulty or lack of because they don't acknowledge the previous reason. Unless one had an unlucky Metronome with Whitney's Clefairy - that's one big exception I'm happy to make.

As for how I think could make Miltank worse? Give it moves that actually counters my Machop and my Graveler. Zen Headbutt, Iron Head, and max BP Return with Scrappy. Then I'll talk.

Edited August 25, 2023 by henrymidfields

[Parrhesia]

Counterpoint: Graveler looks like shit, why would I ever recruit it

[Florete]

On 8/24/2023 at 8:49 PM, henrymidfields said:

I never, ever, ever, understood why people treat Whitney of all things as the Pokemon's answer to Kaptain K Rool or a Dark Souls Boss. Ever. It's like people become collective noobs against her when the solutions against her are still fairly obvious. Her Miltank's Attract? Use a female Pokemon. There's a female Machop that gains bonus EXP in the same city! Even better, catch a Female Graveler that resists both her Rollout and Stomp, and has 115 Defense (one of the highest you can get in the early game) - which is what I did. You're an idiot for not using a Geodude/Graveler anyway (Not using an Onix, I can understand, considering the disbedience issue.) because Rock is supereffective against all of Bugsy's Pokemon and Silver's Zubat line - and in GSC, also Silver's and Morty's Ghastly line because of their part-Poison type. And if you're using the Chikorita line, also Silver's Cyndaquil line too. Speaking of the Chikorita line, although it comes with the caveat of being Female (or switch in when Miltank starts doing Rollout), that's another option for stalling, as that line has comparatively high Defense of 60-80 with Reflect (which lasts for 5 turns, and doesn't disappear after a switch), Poison Powder, and Synthesis.

This post reads like you didn't watch the video you posted.

"Use a female Pokemon." What if you don't have one? Starters are male 87.5% of the time. No player before this point who doesn't know what's coming is thinking about the gender of their Pokemon for battle purposes, so it's not at all unlikely for them to not have any trained female Pokemon, or to only have a female Pidgeotto or something that will get destroyed by Rollout. Also, unlike other status conditions, Attract has no way to cure it aside from KOing the opponent or switching out, so it's very possible for a player to be locked in with this.

"There's a female Machop that gains bonus EXP in the same city!" That only matters if people find and talk to that specific NPC. And they need to go catch a Drowzee, which has only just become available in tall grass that is 100% skippable. As far as I can tell there isn't even a trainer with a Drowzee on their team at this point in the game, so the player could be left entirely unaware of where they can find one. And that Drowzee (and therefore the Machop) is only level 12, so it's still entirely possible to be RNGd out by Stomp. And God forbid you're playing Crystal where the trade for Machop requires catching an Abra with its 10% appearance rate before it teleports away.

"Even better, catch a Female Graveler that resists both her Rollout and Stomp, and has 115 Defense (one of the highest you can get in the early game) - which is what I did." Catch a Graveler...where, exactly? As far as I can tell Graveler isn't available to be caught at this point in any of the games, only evolved from Geodude...at level 25, which you very likely have not reached yet.

"You're an idiot for not using a Geodude/Graveler anyway because Rock is supereffective against all of Bugsy's Pokemon and Silver's Zubat line" Bugsy isn't all that tough without Geodude to begin with, especially if the player chose Cyndaquil and/or brought a Pidgey, and Zubats are cannon fodder, so it's not at all strange for a player to skip out on it. Besides, even a Geodude will eventually take a lot of damage from a high-power Rollout if RNG isn't in your favor.

Pokemon are casual games that tend to be lenient about letting players choose which creatures to send out in battle. It's pretty rude to call people idiots for not picking a specific one.

"Speaking of the Chikorita line, although it comes with the caveat of being Female" ...What?

On 8/24/2023 at 8:49 PM, henrymidfields said:

Speaking of her Rollout? It has a 10% chance of missing, the first two hits only have 30-60BP, and that stupid cow's locked-in with that for 5 turns. Just spam accuracy lowering moves: Sand Attack from any flying Pokemon, TM Mud Slap you get from Falkner, HM Flash for your HM Slave or your Mareep line. TM Dig can also help in interrupting Rollout, plus you can combine that with a Wooper (or Quagsire once it hits Lv 20, with its stat boosts) you can get earlier for type resistance, or the Graveler which I mentioned previously.

First-time players will not know Rollout has 90% accuracy, and this is praying to RNG regardless. Miltank is probably faster than anyone on your own team so you have to pray you get lucky enough before she starts to kill you without you being able to do anything.

Mareep's availability:
Gold/Silver: 20% appearance rate, 10% at night, at level 6 all the way back past Ilex Forest, Azalea Town, and Union Cave.
Crystal: Nowhere lol.
HG/SS: Same as G/S but also available from an egg received in Violet City. Eggs hatch at level 1.

Any other random HM friend you might have taught Flash to has probably not been leveled and therefore dies immediately.

On 8/24/2023 at 8:49 PM, henrymidfields said:

Stomp? Okay, I can see how that might be annoying, but even that has at least two options: Mareep has Static in HGSS and Thunder Wave in both versions, so even a Lum Berry can only do so much. For GSC, use the Ghastly Line to shut Miltank Down with Hypnosis; Miltank doesn't have Lum Berry. Also, Geodude/Graveler - again, see above. And others I may not know of.

And if you didn't get a Gastly, just walk all the way back to Sprout Tower to get one (and wait until night as well)? And even if you did get one but didn't train it, you now must grind it (probably on wild Pokemon since you fought all/most of the trainers) from level 3 at least until level 16 where it can use Curse, the first move it can learn to deal damage to Miltank, which will probably get it killed because Curse halves its HP and Miltank already hit you with Rollout. Hypnosis also has 60% accuracy, so pray to RNG again. Oh, and sure hope your Gastly is female.

See above for Mareep. Paralysis is still just more RNG; it'll help you go first (maybe not even that if you're relying on Geodude, though), but paralysis only stops actions 25% of the time. Miltank is more likely to hit through paralysis than Hypnosis is to hit, even factoring in Rollout's 90%.

A lot of what you're saying relies on the player knowing the fight is coming and how to prepare for it, or just happening to be using the specific Pokemon - of the specific gender - that counter her. There's a lot that can go wrong in the fight. It sounds like you just got lucky.

Edited August 26, 2023 by Florete

[henrymidfields]

On 8/26/2023 at 2:07 PM, Florete said:

Pokemon are casual games that tend to be lenient about letting players choose which creatures to send out in battle.

That was not my experience when I started to play GSC. Choosing Chikorita as my starter, it was clear that I had to diversify, and fast. Falkner? Forget it. Bugsy, again, no. Silver, also no. I've decided to start over, and rethought my approach. I caught many of what I've mentioned above, including the Mareep, Geodude, and Ghastly, because the game made it seemingly clear that just my starter was too risky. Yes, I caught a Drowzee in Silver and an Abra in crystal, just so that I can get the Machop to diversify my team further, no questions asked. I even used the Daycare near Goldenrod to level up Mareep I previously missed out on. It worked out well, because I was in the middle of level grinding other Pokemon, and Mareep caught up in level by the time I finished level grinding a few extra Pokemon. I even explored every part of town just so that I can get extra items of experience, because, why not. It made the whole game much more bearable, and this is something I've always followed religiously. While Whitney's rollout did catch me off guard on my very first try, I still won, and I never had any problem against her for the total of three or four times I played Silver and Crystal after either.

I've eventually moved to RBY after that, and never had a problem with any of the gym leaders. I knew Brock and Misty would be weak to Bulbasaur hence I got yhat from Oak, and for the latter I also stuck around in Viridian Forest to catch a Pikachu. I also caught a Geodude again, as I know Blue's Charmander was going to be a problem. Blue caught me off guard a few times, but I never made the same failure twice.

My bad for the Graveler though. I thought Grav was from an earlier level, but must have forgotten.

Also the video did say that thete are a lot of options provided against Whitney's Miltank, and the author even asked how come people found her so hard despite this.

Edited August 27, 2023 by henrymidfields

[ping]

I daresay that you're more the exception than the rule if you're planning that precisely as a 10-year-old kid I know that when I first played the blue edition, my basic strat was to use my starter (Squirtle, so I happened to pick what's probably the strongest one) and if that didn't work - sacrifice another 'mon to use a revive, and another 'mon to use a (normal/super/hyper) potion, and then use Squirtle again. Not to imply that I was the "default" smol kid, of course, but I think "solo with your starter", or at least "lean heavily on your starter", was the strategy for many a little Pokémon trainer.

And for that case, I do think that Whitney makes a hefty roadblock for a player, especially if they "leaned heavily on their starter", i.e. spread their XP around a bit without really training up another Pokémon that's actually good. None of the starters match up very good against Miltank - Stomp hits much harder than anything you have at this point, thanks to STAB and Miltank's decent attack score, and with its great bulk (and your own lack of really strong attacks), Rollout does become scary fast if you aren't lucky. Is there counterplay? Of course, but not necessarily the kind that a child will naturally stumble upon and want to use. And in neutral match-ups, Miltank is very strong for the point of the game.

[Florete]

8 hours ago, henrymidfields said:

Also the video did say that thete are a lot of options provided against Whitney's Miltank, and the author even asked how come people found her so hard despite this.

It also explained why those might not have been enough for many players.

Also agreed with gnip's post above.

[henrymidfields]

@gnip @Florete Well your arguments just showed that the majority of 10-year-olds at that time, both of you included, are a bunch of lazy snowflakes who didn't do their homework. It'll be a lot better for me if the veterans complaining about her actually replay the game for once and see how their older selves stack up against their younger ones, because it's pretty clear they didn't explore everything when I found it clear (at least with Chikorita) just how limited my options would be with a single Pokemon. I also found that the Anime made this clear that, at least type diversifications is beneficial. This is particularly for a few people who thinks Pokemon has gone too easy - another unpopular opinion, while some entries are easier than othes, and QoL has been going up, Pokemon has never been all that truly hard, you also got better in the game. Also, congratulations, this just made my post an unpopular opinion, I guess. Don't waste your time and effort arguing with me, because I will not budge at all. My point still stand - for any of you who grew up with Gen 1-2, you're all adults now. Stop yelling "ShE's HurTING MAh FeElings" being a bunch of snowflakes, and start doing some actual work. It's called personal responsibility - look it up, and go do your homework.

@ParrhesiaCounterpoint: I don't care about Graveler's appearance as long as its useful.

Edited December 20, 2023 by henrymidfields

[Florete]

You're allowed your opinion, of course. I'm just explaining why people "treat Whitney of all things as the Pokemon's answer to Kaptain K Rool or a Dark Souls Boss." Because relative to Pokemon's average difficulty, she kinda is.

And what kid likes to do homework, anyway? Fuck homework. I haven't been in school for almost a decade and I'm still holding a grudge against that shit.