Do you think starter types should change in future generations?

[Nim]

Ive been thinking and i still dont know if it would be a good idea To change the starters types to something different.

If you think they sould then say what three types should replace the original grass water and fire. If possible try to make them strong against one and weak against the other.

I think if anything they should be changed to fighting, dark and psycic. Alot of you may not like the idea of this change but either way reply by saying if you agree and what three types would be a good new 3.

 

[Leaf]

I'd maybe like that if you could still choose from Fire,Water and Grass.

 

[Agent Zero]

I've though about the possibility of Dark, Psychic, and Fighting starters. It could work, but really, there are a few problems with it.
The first is that you don't fix what isn't broken. Pokemon is one of the most successful video game franchises of all time. The formula they have has been working for over a decade. There doesn't seem to be a demand from the marketplace for significant change, so why risk it? It's not a matter of not liking change, it's a matter of not messing with a VERY successful formula.

Secondly, from an in-game perspective, Grass, Fire, and Water types are perfect for first-time players. Remember it's just not us fans playing the games. You want to ease young players into the game, and the very simple Fire-beats-Grass-beats-Water-beats-Fire formula is a great way to introduce them to the game mechanics.

So while going with Fighting, Dark, and Psychic starters may sound interesting and a nice way to change things up, it doesn't really hold up when you look at it.

 

[Carmen Lopez]

Agent Zero brought up a good point. Sometimes I tend to forget about the younger players, so I think the Grass/Fire/Water typing for the starters should be kept.

Now, I do like the idea of Psychic/Fighting/Dark (which imo, DOESN'T make it unfair for the psychic type at all), but I'd like to see it incorporated into the final form of the starters as their second type rather like with the Sinnoh final forms did with Ground/Fighting/Steel.

 

[Agent Zero]

Now, I do like the idea of Psychic/Fighting/Dark (which imo, DOESN'T make it unfair for the psychic type at all), but I'd like to see it incorporated into the final form of the starters as their second type rather like with the Sinnoh final forms did with Ground/Fighting/Steel.

That's a very good idea. The idea behind the secondary types in Sinnoh was to make the final forms of all the starters perfect matches for each other, but it didn't really work out, with Empoleon's Steel type not giving it a real advantage over Torterra. By implementing Psychic, Dark, and Fighting secondary types they could really perfect the idea they played around with in D/P/Pt. Great idea Reina.

Another idea is to introduce Fighting, Psychic, and Dark type starters into spin-off games, to see how the concept works in the marketplace.

 

[Pheonix]

The biggest change I would like to see is the option of another ability on the higher evolutions other than Blaze/Torrent/Overgrow. While that keeps what the starters have is fairly good, I would much rather see the option of it evolving into a different ability.

 

[StellarWind Elsydeon]

No.

Grass, Fire and Water make a perfect circle that is by now quite iconic. To eff with that would be kinda like Ash's Pikachu getting the boot. It wouldn't be PokeMon anymore. XP

I would like to see more interesting final-form dual types, though.

 

[Linkachu]

Ditto to Stel~

Maybe in the past I debated the concept of changing the base starter types, but not so much anymore. Grass/Water/Fire is tried, tested, and true now, and it's as much a staple in the main RPGs as everything else is. It fits, and I've come to like it. That said, I'm definitely open to seeing new interesting final stage dual-types (preferably not another half Fire/Fighting-type ).

 

[Nim]

Now that i have thought and read what you guys have said I now realize that changing the base types would not be a good thing.

Like one of you said before i think if psycic, dark and fighting shall be introduced to the starters to make them secondary types so as to not change a popular pokemon trademark.

I think they should make one water/ fighting, one fire/ psycic and the other grass dark because these combonations will be quite a change because I cant think of a current pokemon with one of these three type combinations except for shiftry.

 

[Blisk]

Now that i have thought and read what you guys have said I now realize that changing the base types would not be a good thing.

Like one of you said before i think if psycic, dark and fighting shall be introduced to the starters to make them secondary types so as to not change a popular pokemon trademark.

I think they should make one water/ fighting, one fire/ psycic and the other grass dark because these combonations will be quite a change because I cant think of a current pokemon with one of these three type combinations except for shiftry.

Cacturne too. xP

I think we should keep it the same and just change the dual types. It spices things up, but doesn't change a staple in the franchise.

 

[Xatu]

Don't forget Poliwrath.
Honestly, of the combinations that you could make of those types, the only one that doesn't currently exist is Fire/Psychic. (Though ever so technically, Houndoom is Dark/Fire, and not the other way around.)

 

[Blisk]

Don't forget Poliwrath.
Honestly, of the combinations that you could make of those types, the only one that doesn't currently exist is Fire/Psychic. (Though ever so technically, Houndoom is Dark/Fire, and not the other way around.)

Can't believe I forgot that. We also have Breloom for the Grass/Fighting. So Xatu's right. The only real combination we don't have is Fire/Psychic. All the other combinations exist.

 

[Hunting Rifle]

Maybe a Ninetales evolution. Ninetales looks mysterious, and psychic powers are. On the other hand, Ninetales doesn't really look like a psychic type, and would be hard to make a psychic type that stil looks like Ninetales/Vulpix. Psychic/Fire would be better.

I like the three starter types. Fire, Grass and Water together creates a nice roundabout effect.
I just hope the next generation Fire starter doesn't have another Fire/Fighting final evo. That would make it a little boring in my opinion.

 

[Doctor Oak]

Prior to Diamond and Pearl, there was information floating around that Masuda was considering trying Dark, Psychic and Fighting type starters - but stuck with the usual.

I think they'd have trouble if they didn't go with Grass/Fire/Water - but I don't see any reason why they should stick to a choice of 3. Balance isn't necessarily that much of an issue any more as the rival mechanic has changed rather a lot since Gen I - and there's no reason it couldn't change further. Throw in a couple of wildcard types and give us a bit more diversity in choosing between, say, 5 or 6 starters.

 

[Lenvoy]

I don't know why people still think that the Fighting/Dark/Psychic is a good idea despite the fact that it's been pointed out that Psychic not effecting Dark TOTALLY throws everything out of wack.

Plus, not only are Fire, Water, and Grass types iconic, but they're some of the most helpful types you can have. Most people chose to have those types in their party, whereas not as many people use Fighting, Dark, and Psychic, which I like to call auxilery types.

However, if they were to eliminate the x0 that Psychic has on Dark, then I would be intrigued to see the combo tried in a new game, as long as the region where the game takes place is completely disconnected from the others in terms of location and culture. IE- There would be a new system to replace Gym Leaders/Elite 4.

 

[PokeManiac99]

I don't think that the starter types should be changed. Water, Fire, and Grass have always worked well and (excluding water) good pokemon of these types aren't the easiest to find (especially grass). I would like to see the secondary and final forms change though. Personally I would like to see a return of pure type starters (starters that stay the same type throughout all their evolutions) Only the second generation has done that. While I will admit that dual types can be beneficial, I find it makes it a bit harder and more complicated, especially for new players. Well that's pretty much all I have to say on this.

 

[Carmen Lopez]

I don't know why people still think that the Fighting/Dark/Psychic is a good idea despite the fact that it's been pointed out that Psychic not effecting Dark TOTALLY throws everything out of wack.

No it doesn't. That's why people still think it's a good idea. Just like with the grass/water/fire mix where you wouldn't use a water type against a grass type, you wouldn't use a psychic move against a dark type. It's not like the psychic type starter would learn ONLY psychic moves, and the first time you would face your rival, NEITHER Pokemon would know attacks of their type. And every time you' face you rival thereafter, you'd just switch Pokemon--just like you do now. I fail to see how psychic type moves 'TOTALLY' throws everything out of wack.

I still support not changing the types though. Just wanted to point out that it wouldn't be unbalanced.

 

[Fumanshu]

meh I would aqua jet a grass starter if it had like 2hp left D:
but thats another discussion.


I think the basic principle of fire/grass/water is fine. Its typical pokemans, BUUUUT
they could make 2 final evolutions to each starter. It would be an interesting thing having 6 possible starters that way~

 

[KoL]

Honestly, I think they should keep the three types the same. If it became apparent that there was balancing issues with Grass/Water/Fire, then I'd agree that a change would be a good thing. However, no such issues have ever arisen so I say just keep them the same. If it ain't broken, for the love of god don't fix it.

 

[Satoren]

A Fighting-Rock-Flying starter trio could work just as well. Although personally, I don't see a particular need to change the starter typings. Fire, Grass and Water type Pokemon have a decent amount of strengths and weaknesses and that's probably why you start out with any of the three. It'd be nice if we had a tad more variety though, or heck, just slap an electric starter and I think that'd be reasonable.

But then again, some people don't always have their starters on them forever. Most have an actively changing roster that allows for several Pokemon of the same typing, but with different stats and abilities. The only time I've ever been compelled to keep a starter was in Diamond and Pearl, when Infernape seemed to be the only decent Fire type available before you unlocked the National Dex.

 

[NonAnalogue]

I agree with Doc, thinking about it. I think a good step towards diversifying the starters would be to just get more of a selection. I thought Pokemon XD was on the right track, technically giving us a choice of 5 Pokemon to start with (even if they were all Eeveelutions). And, hell, who says there has to be a super-effective cycle? Personally, I just want something to shake up the series a bit. I had a lot of fun with DPP, mostly because I loved Galactic and the design of Sinnoh itself (not to mention the localization), but by this point, collecting 8 badges then challenging the Elite 4 is getting a little stale. Pokemon XD and Colosseum, I thought, were on a good track.

...hm, look at that tangent. Anyway, summary: Sure, change the starter types. It might shake something up.

 

[Rex]

I think the starters are fine as is. Fire-Water-Grass has worked for four generations thus far, whats to say it won't work for future one's as well? Besides, starters can be dual type. Bulbasaur is part Poison, and all the fire starter evolutions from Generations III and IV are part Fighting, Charizard is part Flying, so on and so forth. So I don't see any problem with having them stay as is, but adding a second type.

 

[Agent Zero]

Honestly, I think they should keep the three types the same. If it became apparent that there was balancing issues with Grass/Water/Fire, then I'd agree that a change would be a good thing. However, no such issues have ever arisen so I say just keep them the same. If it ain't broken, for the love of god don't fix it.

This is the single best argument for keeping things the way they are when you get right down to it. You won't see a Zelda game where Link's using a handgun. You won't see a Pokemon game that doesn't feature Fire-Grass-Water starters. It's a staple of very successful franchise.

 

[Doctor Oak]

And yet, nothing every really changing is the main reason for criticism for the franchise - just as it is for Zelda. Sure, everything is still great because the formula to begin with - but after nearly 15 years, it's time to take a few risks and re-invigorate the series. It only takes the smallest changes to do that, too - so why not start with changing how the starters work a bit?

 

[KoL]

And yet, nothing every really changing is the main reason for criticism for the franchise - just as it is for Zelda. Sure, everything is still great because the formula to begin with - but after nearly 15 years, it's time to take a few risks and re-invigorate the series. It only takes the smallest changes to do that, too - so why not start with changing how the starters work a bit?

That to me is just a lose-lose situation though - if you start taking risks and changing stuff that doesn't need changing, the people who think it should stay the same (and there's a lot of them) will complain instead - you're not making less people complain, you're simply changing which people are complaining, which means you still lose. At the end of the day, taking a risk like that for potentially no gain is not worth it, especially when your sales are still through the roof with your current formula, which proves that said formula works.

 

[Xatu]

But they have been making small changes over time.
The addition of types in G/S. The battle tower in Crystal. The contests in R/S. The Battle Frontier in Emerald. The Global Trading in D/P.

Not to mention, we have seen entirely different things in some of the non main series games. The Gamecube games were very different. Mystery Dungeon and Ranger took a completely different spin on things and worked out great.

There are plenty of changes and additions to what it used to be. They just aren't in the classic staple of the game. (i.e. 10 year old leaves home, fights 8 gyms, takes down an evil organization, defeats the elite four.)

 

[KoL]

Those are different, those are obvious improvements and additions to the game that were made to provide a better gameplay experience - there's no risk involved there.

Also, you can't bring Mystery Dungeon and Ranger into this because they're different games, not additions made to the mainstream games. They're entirely irrelevant to the discussion, never mind that they don't have anywhere near the same success as their mainstream counterparts anyway.

Changing the starters is nothing more than a variation made to the standard formula that makes it different without improving it at all, which is completely different to adding new things or any of the spinoff games.

 

[Agent Zero]

And yet, nothing every really changing is the main reason for criticism for the franchise - just as it is for Zelda. Sure, everything is still great because the formula to begin with - but after nearly 15 years, it's time to take a few risks and re-invigorate the series. It only takes the smallest changes to do that, too - so why not start with changing how the starters work a bit?

The thing is, the franchise has changed enough to keep everything fresh. The console games feature their own unique characters and stories, and spin-off handhelds like the Ranger and Mystery Dungeon series have all introduced new takes on the franchise. Even within the main games we've gotten innovation. Xatu mentioned most of them. The basic staples of the franchise, however, shouldn't be messed with unless the market starts demanding it. In short, don't kill the golden goose.
It's sort of like Mario. We get new, interesting stuff through the Mario Cart games, the Mario Party series, and other Mario spin-offs, but the standard "smash blocks and stomp on turtles" formula has largely remained unchanged.