Quoted By:
don't really think most people understand this, but even if it WAS possible to balance things so intricately that literally all 900 pokemon were viable, which it is not, it would be terrible.
You guys don't really seem to understand that the existence of weak pokemon is literally THE THING that defines who is strong. I know it's a cliche, but if everything is super, nothing is. When you make Furret as viable as Garchomp, you aren't just making Furret rise to Garchomp's level. Garchomp lowers too as a result of the equilibrium. The fact that Furret is weak is what allowed Garchomp to be considered powerful in the first place—without the juxtaposition, without contrast, the notion of power is meaningless. If you take that away, if you make all 900 pokemon formidable, what you are doing is simultaneously insuring that none of them are.
What you would have leftover is an extremely dry, stale game. This isn't Mario Kart, these are battles. Weak monsters need to either compensate by employment of interesting creative strategies or by, yes, just simply accepting they aren't very good. And in fact, certain pokemon are literally and intentionally designed to be bad, and that's okay. This isn't bad game design, it's deliberate and very wise game design.
Unown for example. It is very clearly NOT designed for its power or for having a good design, 100% of the appeal is from the attached lore and mystery. It actually wouldn't be more impressive if it was strong, it would be less so. The intentional shittiness is there on purpose to convey the idea that tho they may seem weak at first glance they are far more than they seem with the literal power to reshape the universe. You need juxtaposition. If all things are equal, no one can specialize. No one can stand out. You need weakness, without it strength does not exist.
