ORAS Baby Pokemon.

[TCGDeoxys]

Well, its about time I posted this. Baby Pokemon discussion, state your opinions!
Baby Pokemon: Pre evolutions created in Gen II onward, used for advertising.
Why I Hate Them: Well, most of them aren't even cute, and they are only used for advertising purposes. The only good part is the new moves, that's it. Not only that, but they are a pain to evolve!

 

[King Arceus]

For a while I used to play with a good size group of people and we did Not Fully Evolved battles. With how many not fully evolved Pokemon there are we actually had tiered them similar to how Pokemon are tiered now. We focused on stats and movepool instead of usage for tiering. They were really fun and you'd use Pokemon you'd normally never use.

What I do like about baby Pokemon is that in generation 6 they are guaranteed to have an IV of 31 in at least 3 stats since they are in the no eggs group. This makes it easier to breed competitive Pokemon quickly. New moves are great in some cases. Before Tms had unlimited uses, some baby Pokemon could learn moves that were tms such as Smoochum learning Psychic through level up that Jynx would never get.

 

[Mitja]

It was absolutely no pain getting my Wynaut to Level 15 ;D


But in all seriousness.. I know I'm in the minority here, but I like baby pokemon (heck, I just remembered even my avatar is supposed to be one! Roosteel, a Skarmory pre-evolution I made up long ago).
1. the concept itself (a new lower stage added to an existing pokemon) is perfectly fine, and it makes complete sense to exist since new evolutions can be added too (which is why both made a debut immediately in gen 2)
2. the actual baby pokemon we have so far: sure, there are some that barely add anything or do something interesting with the design (like Cleffa), but many of them are unique additions (Chingling) that would have been fully accepted if they were introduced right away with their higher stage, and some of them even add a cool twist that wasn't there before (Tyrogue). But even if most of them were just smaller cuter versions of the original that are a pain to evolve, the idea itself deserves to exist and has potential for interesting baby-pokemon in the future.
3. usefulness: as you mention there is one thing they add (special egg-moves), but that could have been done by changing the egg-moves of the evolved stage itself just as easily. However, there is a different and IMO more important aspect that makes baby-pokemon useful: making early accessibility an option (there is no way you could encounter an Electabuzz/Magmar early... a wild Elekid/Magby however is perfectly fine, and already happened in BW2)
4. pre-evolutions can really help flesh out a pokemon by expanding it's evolutionary family, exactly as much as ALL OTHER not fully evolved stages of any pokemon. If you think Bonsly is pointless, but don't want to be a hypocrite, then you should think that Charmender and Charmeleon are just as pointless, because they are all simply weaker steps before the actual desired stronger Pokemon. And if you think that they are pointless because they are too weak, then by that logic so are all the weak pokemon that do not evolve.


The hate baby-pokemon get is undeserved. It's often unfounded and hypocritical, with the only argument against their existence usually boiling down to that they might be taking up sacred dex-spots that other hypothetical new pokemon could have occupied instead (and there I sincerely doubt Gamefreak goes "darn, we need to exclude this awesome pokemon because all the baby pokemon are preventing us". That's just ridiculous.)

I will concede that many of them evolving by friendship is an annoying yet logical choice (at least they should have made their base friendship after capture be like ~175, so they would all evolve quite quickly, merely not Level-dependant, turning it into "just don't throw them into battle recklessly and they'll evolve quickly"-gimmick), but actually precisely half of them (9 out of 18) do not require friendship-evolutions.
But hey, since the beginning of gen6, there is even an incentive to catch a baby instead of the evolved form, because baby-pokemon now have 3 guaranteed perfect IVs, like legendaries do.

The only real issue I have with how baby-Pokemon are currently handled, is the whole Incense business. I am all for consistency, but creating a new Incense for every single line is a poor solution. With the (albeit slowly) increasing list of babies, the Incenses will probably have to be changed to some other method sometime in the future..but whatever it is, I hope it happens earlier than necessary and doesn't prevent both parents from holding an Everstone and DestinyKnot.


There is still plenty of Pokemon I'd love to see get pre-evolutions to make them more interesting and those are my main reason for beign enthusiastic of more baby-pokemon. For example:
-Lapras
-Tropius
-Onix
-Skarmory
-Absol
-Tauros
-Miltank
-Druddigon
-Heatmor&Durant
-Maractus
-Hawlucha
-Zangoose&Seviper
-Girafarig
-Pinsir/Heracross

Is there really anyone who isn't curious about how at least a few of these might look? Do you not have a heart?? You monster! Just kidding. But honestly, Pokemon is great because of its diversity in the creature designs, and if you're one of the people who only cares about the "cool badass dragon designs" or similar, then I can't help you, but some of us like other kinds of designs once in a while

EDIT: I forgot one more interesting potential with baby-Pokemon. Pseudo-baby-stages for legendaries, like Phione. In Phiones case this was a poor execution, and rather just a gimmick in itself, but if done correctly, it could be more interesting.

Imagine for example some of the more important legendaries getting a weaker version of themselves that can be bred from them. Lugia/Reshiram/Dialga Jr. And because the originals stats are so overwhelming, the pseudo-baby stages would get a chance for being competitively viable while keeping the cool type combinations, abilities and all that.

EDIT2: Made a blogpost out of this that might be more enjoyable to read if anyone is interested: http://pokehype.blogspot.com/2015/06/baby-pokemon.html

 

[Leaf_Ranger]

Well, its about time I posted this. Baby Pokemon discussion, state your opinions!
Baby Pokemon: Pre evolutions created in Gen II onward, used for advertising.
Why I Hate Them: Well, most of them aren't even cute, and they are only used for advertising purposes. The only good part is the new moves, that's it. Not only that, but they are a pain to evolve!

As always, competitive use aside, I find them very cute and funny, namely Budew which I love! I also don't have any problem with them and they have all the right to be there. I don't care if they're used for advertising, those Pichu brothers' short was delicious and a nice change from the usual battles.

 

[Zygarde]

I have nothing against baby Pokémon, but I love the concept of non evolving Pokémon, and adding babies to those is really reducing the number of Pokémon that are not part of an evolutionary family. Chimecho, Snorlax, Magmar (which shouldn't even had gotten an evolution IMO) all felt like singular, unique Pokémon.

 

[Scattered mind]

I think they didn't give them any value to the game other than being cute. I think they could have gave them some special abilities such as making eggs hatch faster or making their parents exp grow when they are in the player's party. I don't think you can compare them to regular pre-evolutions since they were introduced specially as a new feature.

 

[Raizen]

They don't seem to add much to the game other than to add more pages to the pokedex. Maybe if baby pokemon had competitively viable moves that their parents don't have access to, they'd be more interesting. Cute, though.

 

[Mitja]

They don't seem to add much to the game other than to add more pages to the pokedex.

But isn't that the same for many regular not-fully-evolved pokemon?

Maybe if baby pokemon had competitively viable moves that their parents don't have access to, they'd be more interesting. Cute, though.

It's not common but Pichu learns Nasty Plot for example.

I think people would then be annoyed by baby pokemon if they had to breed with incenses (making it impossible to use both Everstone and Destiny Knot) just for some move ^^"

 

[professorlight]

First, I agree with everything mitja said.

Now, you can see baby pokemon (and all pokemon) from two perspectives; the competitive standpoint, which isn't "endorsed" officially by the design team, or the lore/game standpoint, which is.

Competitively, baby pokemon are barely more than a glorified move tutor, and thus, they are worthless. But most pokemon are, according to it, so I'm not sure that trying to measure any pokemon but a handful of them by competitive standards is really conducive to any new insights besides "baby pokemon suks lol".

From a game standpoint, as mitja said, baby pokemon are just a way to make certain pokemon available sooner, or to give them special moves; many would say it's not necessary and they take up space, but I'm not sure; they are unique designs which yes, lean more towards the "cute" side of the scale, but then, why wouldn't they? you're going down the evolutionary ladder; you can't start from electabuzz and end with electabuzz-mini, when doing a pre-evolution.
Imagine if Charmeleon had been originally the base stage, and charmander was added in gen II with the babies; the same arguments would apply; charmander is cute, has large eyes, a simple, smooth design, just like every other baby pokemon out there; you just don't go from "fierce" to "fierce" on preevolutions, which is why I think that not every standalone pokemon needs a baby; some do, like skarmory, or girafarig, but most are fine as they are.

Oh, I forgot. I'm not sure that baby legendaries are a good idea, really; legendaries are supposed to be, and have always been, the monstrous powerhouses they are today, if they were even capable of breeding (which in itself brings the problem of how can there be multiple dialgas, for example, if just one dialga is supposed to control all of time).

BUT, I would agree on this for mythical pokemon (like the events) or even some trios, like the bird trio (since the entei trio and the muskedeers have backstories that establish them as how they are now).
And... I'm not saying this because I think that Baby Meloetta would be the cutest thing in the world, of course.

 

[Scattered mind]

So from your explanation: why Pichu is a baby Pokemon and Charmander is not?
There is the main reason:
"Baby Pokémon are Pokémon at the lowest stage of Pokemon evolution that cannot themselves breed."

So basically they are like any other pre evolution Pokemon only that they cannot breed. I think that is the whole point why some people (like myself) don't like their idea. I don't know anyone who says they are bad because they are not competitive. They are bad because they don't give any value to the game other than being available early.

 

[professorlight]

Well, that was quite rude.

First, I agree with everything mitja said.
Imagine if Charmeleon had been originally the base stage, and charmander was added in gen II with the babies; the same arguments would apply; charmander is cute, has large eyes, a simple, smooth design, just like every other baby pokemon out there; you just don't go from "fierce" to "fierce" on preevolutions, which is why I think that not every standalone pokemon needs a baby; some do, like skarmory, or girafarig, but most are fine as they are.

If charmander had been added as a baby pokemon, which was the full hypothetical point I was making, it wouldn't breed anyway, while charmeleon would. It wouldn't change the fact that the same step in cuteness from charmeleon to charmander is present on all the other pokemon who gained a pre-evolution.

But regardless of the specific definition of baby pokemon, "not being able to breed, therefore they're bad and don't add anything" is in fact a very competitive standpoint; you're judging the overall design and class concept of the pokemon because it requires you to train and evolve your pokemon (what ever shall I do? they want me to play my pokemon game!) before you're able to pass on those special egg/baby moves onto your full 31 IV uber-baby pokemon which you will later EV train and evolve.
Baby pokemon (as are most pokemon) are just a means to an end, competitively speaking, while design-wise, they're an end unto themselves.

 

[Scattered mind]

Oh I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to be rude. I was seriously asking from pure curiosity to your point of view.

I don't think it has anything with competitive value- they could make them with non competitive abilities too such as being able to alert you if their parents are around if you have them in your party. (Yeah thats lame but you get the point).

My main point is that baby pokemon are a feature with only downsides. If you are making a new kind of Pokemon with something bad( not being able to breed) imo you should give them something good that the normal Pokemon don't have.

 

[professorlight]

Oh, I see.
Well, in the competitive mindset, the ideal state is that everything has to be useful, because useless things get discarded or unused; as you said, a pokemon with something bad needs to be balanced with something good (and even then, a new ability or something still wouldn't make the babies be better regarded). The downsides only exist on that realm.

But from the design standpoint, that's not only not always the case, but it's not even a necessity you aim to; the overall design, "flaws" and all is everything you aim to; is it unique? interesting? does it bring new things that weren't done before (say, elekid's electric plug head, or the non-breeding)?
There are just no downsides (in these particular cases; I could cite a lot of other pokemon who do have problems in this regard *cough*monkey trio*cough*).

I'll give you an example. Aurorus. As a design, it's absolutely perfect, a true end unto itself, the alpha and the omega of its particular intention. But competitively, it has just so many downsides that it's worthless to battle with. The babies are like that; from a competitive view, they need to change a lot before they're useful, because that's what competitiveness is about: usefulness; from a design view, they're already perfect, because competitive downsides are just another part of what makes a design unique and interesting.

 

[Gruffling]

The slight inconsistency annoys me with Togepi and Lucario but I'm fond of them it adds a new dynamic to a pre-existing standalone.

 

[Scattered mind]

Oh, I see.
Well, in the competitive mindset, the ideal state is that everything has to be useful, because useless things get discarded or unused; as you said, a pokemon with something bad needs to be balanced with something good (and even then, a new ability or something still wouldn't make the babies be better regarded). The downsides only exist on that realm.

But from the design standpoint, that's not only not always the case, but it's not even a necessity you aim to; the overall design, "flaws" and all is everything you aim to; is it unique? interesting? does it bring new things that weren't done before (say, elekid's electric plug head, or the non-breeding)?
There are just no downsides (in these particular cases; I could cite a lot of other pokemon who do have problems in this regard *cough*monkey trio*cough*).

I'll give you an example. Aurorus. As a design, it's absolutely perfect, a true end unto itself, the alpha and the omega of its particular intention. But competitively, it has just so many downsides that it's worthless to battle with. The babies are like that; from a competitive view, they need to change a lot before they're useful, because that's what competitiveness is about: usefulness; from a design view, they're already perfect, because competitive downsides are just another part of what makes a design unique and interesting.

I meant that they could give them more value even if it had nothing to do with competitive play. I'll try to give a better example:
What if having a baby Pokemon in your party would raise the chances of getting a Shiny Pokemon in the wild?
I think its a good example for my point since it has nothing to do with competitiveness.
But I understand your thinking and it is true that not everything needs to be useful.
I guess it is just what I'm automatically looking for when there is a new feature, like Keldeo's resolute form.

 

[Scattered mind]

The slight inconsistency annoys me with Togepi and Lucario but I'm fond of them it adds a new dynamic to a pre-existing standalone.

This is actually pretty interesting since it shows that the baby Pokemon feature was not just for Pokemon from previous gens.

 

[professorlight]

I meant that they could give them more value even if it had nothing to do with competitive play. I'll try to give a better example:
What if having a baby Pokemon in your party would raise the chances of getting a Shiny Pokemon in the wild?
I think its a good example for my point since it has nothing to do with competitiveness.
But I understand your thinking and it is true that not everything needs to be useful.
I guess it is just what I'm automatically looking for when there is a new feature, like Keldeo's resolute form.

I understand where you're coming from, but I don't mean competitive just as "competitive" but more as a design/critique philosophy; calling it "utilitarian" would miss the connection to pokemon, I'm afraid.

For instance; in your example, what would be the reason why baby pokemon increase the chances to get a shiny pokemon? that is what this philosophy concerns itself with, the "why" of certain features, and those features include flaws that would be otherwise removed if you tackled the issue in an utilitarian way (the competitive mindest being an application of utilitarian principles).
If you can provide a reason why baby pokemon would attract shinies, then by all means; I could maybe specifically design a pokemon whose ability increases the chance of shinies (and that's an idea I'll consider now), and if I can give a plausible reason why, there's no need to not do it.

Edit: I'll give you a personal example; I follow this design philosophy, which is why on my starter trio, the grass/fairy starter is cripplingly disadvantaged compared to the fire/dark starter and with the water/poison starter.
It wasn't my intention, but the design was fitting, the starters (as a trio) make sense, and so do their respective typings... maybe GF wouldn't do this to this extent, where one of the starters is so weak compared to the others; but it makes sense to me, as long as the flaws are derived from the design.

 

[Leaf_Ranger]

The above discussion between professorlight and Scattered mind reminded me of something when it comes to purposes of Pokémon, namely competively or not: for me, baby Pokémon are for design what Mega-evolutions are for battling. Most people see baby Pokémon as useless because of any value but I say something like that about Megas because I don't care about their battle purpose or th battling side at all. I have baby Pokémon because I love to see new and cuter designs, the change to have something different, namely a frail Pokémon, the change to see an evolution happening. Budew game me the change to have a new Grass type and a change to have a different look at Roselia.

Edit: if people are questioning baby Pokémon then question also gimmick Pokémon like Minun/Plusle and the monkey trio. I have no problem with these Pokémon. Also, imagine that perhaps certain designers like a Pokémon that they would like to see it in a evolution family but are not into thinking about competitive value and the games are already into a new gen., so they just make it a baby Pokémon

 

[Scattered mind]

Right. My example was to show that I wasn't referring to competitive values but to general usefulness in the gameplay itself. But I must admit that I ignored the usefulness of the baby Pokemon to the Pokemon world/story. Like Leaf_Ranger said, baby Pokemon makes the Pokemon world richer and adds to the story behind each Pokemon who has a baby pre-evolution, same goes for other features in the game now that I'm thinking about it such as the Vivillon forms.

 

[Mitja]

For some reason, it annoys me that any future pre-evolution comes with an incense for the sake of consistency..

I mean, I wouldn't be like "what the hell??" if breeding Sudowoodos now results in Bonsly hatching by default.
It's not as obvious as evolutions, where they didn't dare to make Leafeon evolve via LEaf Stone for example, but with pre-evolutions, the people who would actually notice the inconsistency, would probably be okay with it anyway..

I also don't like the "can't breed" as an automatic feature of a new pre-evolution. I mean something like Elekid or Tyrogue doesn't seem THAT baby-like. There is plenty of regular pokemon who would fit that description better but aren't baby-pokemon.

Perhaps they should reassign which pokemon are considered baby pokemon (-->making them unable to breed). Something like Ralts/Whismur/Espurr/Cubchoo would become a baby-pokemon, while Tyrogue/Munchlax/Elekid/Magby would get the egg-groups of their later stages.

But the problem of consistency with cross-generational pre-evolution remains..
I think one way to get rid of Incenses, would be to program ratios for which lower stage hatches how often.
For example, the Sudowoodo-line, could have a 3:1 ratio of the egg hatching as a Sudowoowo:Bonsly, meaning 25% of the eggs would turn out to be Bonsly and 75% Sudowoodo. Then make a single Breeding incense item, which guarantees to produce the lowest available stage 100% of the time.

This way, whenever a new pre-evolution is added, the ratio is simply changed from 100% Electabuzz to 25% Electabuzz - 75% Elekid, which is pseudo-consistent as the same case still exist, it just isn't the only one anymore.
Of course this would also be applied to regular evolutionary lines, so breeding Charizard might occasionally (say 12.5%) result in a Charmeleon instead of Charmander.

We could then get pre-evolutions which are regular lower stages and not automatically baby-pokemon.