Nuzlocke Unpopular Nuzlocke opinions

[SprungGeoduck]

I feel like at this point the "Hardcore" nuzlockes and "Storytelling" Nuzlockes are quickly undergoing a kind of divergent evolution

This perfectly nails the actual reason why I don't like PChal. While I feel like YouTube nuzlocking has always somewhat lacked the emotional investment factor that makes nuzlocke comics and stories so enthralling, the recent hardcore nuzlocke trend has massively exacerbated this. Not to get nuz-political, but I'm something of a nuzlocke originalist: I think that the old-school principles outlined by Nuzlocke the man, about using mons you wouldn't think to use previously and forming a greater emotional attachment to your team, are incredibly important to what makes nuzlocking as a format so interesting. The hardcore trend throws this away imo

 

[Heather]

So I've seen a few posts in this thread about the level of preparation that goes into one's boss battles, and there's a few things I have to say on this topic.

First and foremost: If you're like me and replay Pokémon games a lot and even casually can never seem to consistently get a clean fight against a certain Trainer, then making a plan isn't a bad thing. You bet I drew on all of my experience with Kukui in my UCL, because that man's AI does not mess around and his team is built to punish you hard if you treat his fight as being as straightforward as most Pokémon boss fights-a lot of times, he'll switch rather than Full Restore in a pinch if he has an answer to whatever you have on the field, especially with his lead Lycanroc. And his team is put together well enough that if he gets you on the back foot, he can easily ruin you outright. Having a plan in place for that kind of scenario is normal and should be encouraged.

On the other hand, if your rule set is forcing you to have a plan for every major battle because the occurrence of any death is stressing you out about how you'll manage later, then there's a good chance that whatever ruleset you're running isn't good for you, and that's fine. I'm going to be honest, after this UCL, I'm not sure I ever want to touch the idea of doing a monotype run for a long time. I mostly did it because I saw most other UCL runs using that ruleset, but it's been really eye-opening as to how even the most common types, like Flying, only have so many options for secondary typings, which makes certain Pokémon valued a lot more highly than others. Losing Pidgey in Mono-Flying Kanto is not a big deal, because you have Fearow, Dodrio, and even Farfetch'd if you are down bad for another Normal/Flying. Losing Gyarados in the same scenario, on the other hand, is outright devastation, because you have NO other Water type after that point, no matter what Kanto game you're playing-other options just don't exist in RBY, FRLG prevents trading Pokémon outside of the OG 151 until you beat the game and then some, and then they're back to just not existing again in LGPE. Again, one of the principles of the Nuzlocke challenge was to make you attached to your Pokémon, but eight straight runs of the monotype ruleset have seen me not being attached to the Pokémon as characters and friends, but as assets that I need to finish the game so I don't have to start it over. This isn't an outright condemnation of the Monotype ruleset, to be clear-if you enjoy that type of challenge, then go for it. What I am saying is don't force yourself into rulesets you don't like just for the prestige of it.

 

[Sparklepop]

Here is my spicy hot take.

There is no wrong way to play a Nuzlocke as long as you follow the two core rules of a Nuzlocke (only catch the first encounter and if it faints, it dies). I see nothing wrong with playing a Nuzlocke for the story or playing a Nuzlocke for the challenge. I personally do a bit of both. I can’t help but tell a story with my runs, but I also want to win and plan out strategies to minimalize casualty. Both story-based and hardcore Nuzlockes have their place in the community in my opinion. Some people just want to write good stories, some people want to prove their skills and do the hardest challenge they can think of. You can care or bond with your Pokémon, or you can just use what is the strongest. It’s not like you can hurt their feelings because Pokémon are not real.

Double Hot Take.
All ROM hacks, unless they are specifically made to be as brutal as possible, should have accommodations for players who are bad at the game. Contrary to popular belief, not everyone in the community is capable of handling massive level jumps. One hack I played (I don’t remember if I tried to Nuzlocke it or not), which was called Victory something and had like an all fakemon dex, made the first rival battle have a Lv. 10 or Lv. 15 or something crazy like that. Not all of us know to grind that high!

Note: Does anyone know of the hack I'm talking about? The Grass Starter was hummingbird/pheasant called Rileaf.

 

[Honey Badger]

this discussion reminds me of a pet peeve:

people complaining about getting "bad" pokemon, like the aforementioned ledyba or onix, or low IVs or bad natures

it goes against the point of doing nuzlockes

and it goes against the point of hardcore rules too; what is the point of adding rules that require more skill if you care about getting good encounter luck?

anyway, i will admit that this trend got me back into nuzlocking a few years ago. i don't see why you have to be less emotionally attached to your team in this kind of run. yes, it is harder to keep them alive, but that makes you more responsible for what happens. whether you actually feel more responsible, however, is up to you.

 

[Neotornado]

This perfectly nails the actual reason why I don't like PChal. While I feel like YouTube nuzlocking has always somewhat lacked the emotional investment factor that makes nuzlocke comics and stories so enthralling, the recent hardcore nuzlocke trend has massively exacerbated this. Not to get nuz-political, but I'm something of a nuzlocke originalist: I think that the old-school principles outlined by Nuzlocke the man, about using mons you wouldn't think to use previously and forming a greater emotional attachment to your team, are incredibly important to what makes nuzlocking as a format so interesting. The hardcore trend throws this away imo

going by both this and the "it should be your story, not your challenge" trend in the past few comments, I haven't seen P before but I'm wondering if they'd feel more at home with the Ironmon challenge than the nuzlocke one. since that basically feels like taking the nuzlocke sense of challenge and stripping away the non-gameplay elements from it, allowing it to be optimized for quick one-off streams and repeatedly throwing yourself at the wall until you eventually break though.

On the subject of ironmon, my hot take is probably that I'm not a fan of "pure" randomzier runs in general where everything is randomized? probably because since all logic is thrown out the window and everything just becomes a guessing game where anything can just KO a mon out of nowhere. Probably one of those things that's better to watch than to play but I still prefer some consistency in my runs, which is why I generally stick to egglockes and (rarely) less crazy randomizer settings when I want a random run.

(to comment on troll I think the rando they use has a specific thing where wonder guard is left untouched (so shedinja still has it and nothing else does) but I have seen comments about imposter making gen 5+ ironmons borderline impossible for that reason)

 

[Trollkitten]

On the subject of ironmon, my hot take is probably that I'm not a fan of "pure" randomzier runs in general where everything is randomized? probably because since all logic is thrown out the window and everything just becomes a guessing game where anything can just KO a mon out of nowhere. Probably one of those things that's better to watch than to play but I still prefer some consistency in my runs, which is why I generally stick to egglockes and (rarely) less crazy randomizer settings when I want a random run.

The thing about randomizing EVERYTHING is that something can have, say, Wonder Guard out of nowhere and completely mess you up. Also Transform/Imposter could happen at literally any moment, so setting up can be suddenly brutally punished if you lose the speed tie.

 

[Zaazaa0]

On the subject of story nuzlockes vs challenge nuzlockes, I think that's kind of a natural evolution of the way we look at nuzlockes. After you've done dozens of them, the emotional attachment factor does kind of dissipate because, well, I've used all these Pokemon in nuzlockes before. I'll always remember my first ever nuzlocke death, and it's fun to get really invested by documenting a run, but I feel like it's not a bad thing to want to advance from that stage to something more difficult. This paragraph applies to youtubers/streamers too, as you can only ever do one "my first nuzlocke" video series, and then everything after that is "another nuzlocke". It's just not the same, and I think it's fine to accept that.

Hardcore nuzlocking is a lot like speedrunning Breath of the Wild; it strips the game down and removes all of what makes it special, but just because some people want to do it, that doesn't invalidate everyone else who plays it. Ultimately I just don't want people who prefer either way to gatekeep everyone else from having fun the way they want to.

 

[Trollkitten]

After you've done dozens of them, the emotional attachment factor does kind of dissipate because, well, I've used all these Pokemon in nuzlockes before.

This is why I use a multi-run dupes clause in some of my runs. If I've used a Pokemon more than twice in my previous nuzlockes (as in actually USED them, not just caught them), I can choose to ignore it as my encounter and get the next encounter. This is however optional on a case-by-case basis because 1. some areas have a limited pool of Pokemon you can encounter (Kanto in particular has a pretty low selection of available mons), and 2. I will never not use Masquerain if given the chance because Masquerain is awesome.

 

[King Smorgascake]

I agree with much of the above about 'bad' mons. For me, almost being forced to use an early game Bug is one of the charms, especially as some are surprisingly useful (Butterfree, Dustox) if you give them some lovin'.

As for Monotype runs (no I can't be arsed quoting), I'm trying on for the first time at the moment and ehhh, I just don't feel the same investment in it.

 

[Trollkitten]

As for Monotype runs (no I can't be arsed quoting), I'm trying on for the first time at the moment and ehhh, I just don't feel the same investment in it.

I don't think I could ever do a monotype run. I have had ideas for limited-type runs before, and once tried a run of X where I could only use Psychic, Ghost, Dark, and Fairy mons, but unfortunately my save became unusable because I didn't realize that you can only have one save file for 3DS Pokemon games you've downloaded even if you use multiple data cards to download the game twice. (I do hope to eventually try something like that again with a new savefile, not necessarily as an X game but possibly as one because Kalos has a lot of wild Pokemon variety to it, which is one of the few good points that game has imo).

 

[Memento]

I agree with much of the above about 'bad' mons. For me, almost being forced to use an early game Bug is one of the charms, especially as some are surprisingly useful (Butterfree, Dustox) if you give them some lovin'.

As for Monotype runs (no I can't be arsed quoting), I'm trying on for the first time at the moment and ehhh, I just don't feel the same investment in it.

I love doing mono/duotype runs...if there's a bit of difficulty in them (i.e., Drayano hacks). I had a lot of fun with a psychiclocke of Blaze Black 2 (and I haven't played the Redux version yet, so it'll be exciting to see what changes are made.), and I also played a dark/fairy duolocke of Renegade Platinum before I lost the save file on my old computer (I finally got a new computer and have downloaded the hacks I used to have, but I've been busy trying to get to where I was in my Crystal lorelocke.)

And bad mons? No such thing. There's a run by QuietGuardian - shoutout to him - where he used nothing but Unown and beat the Elite Four with them. No such thing as a bad mon; I bet even Wobuffet can be used properly (as much as I hate the stupid thing).

The whole point of a Nuzlocke is using mons who you've never used before and caring about them. Hell, I try to use all of the Pokemon I catch, grind them all up to level forty or their final evolution (whichever comes first). That's part of my ruleset, and it makes it fun, especially with a death limit; it makes me care about each and every one of the Pokemon I catch.

 

[Neotornado]

as a side note someone mentioned natures earlier, I'm one of those people that's hyper specific about natures, where if you have a defense lowering nature or an attack lowering nature that lowers someting you need, then that's almost an auto-box. On the other hand, if someone gets a good nature then I feel incined to use them regardless of how "good" they actually are. The most notable case being a delibird in a B2 run where I used because they were timid and they actually did a pretty good job in the E4. (mostly on iris's ice-weak team but still.)

Wobbs (and pyukumuku in gens 7/8) are odd in that they kinda rely on knowing what your opponent will do in a given fight. They're a lot easier to use in repeat runs and especially in gen IV+ runs where mixed sets are far less common. It's still difficult but its def. doable and can have great results in the right places.

As for my own hot take, I actually like having a rotating party of mons, not through death but just through bringing members out when they're needed. There's more grinding involved but I generally just use that as a time to catch up on other things. As a result I can almost never play through a notepad clause run because of how much teammate switching I tend to do in an average run, especially runs that are on the tricky side (romhacks) or involve specific team loadouts (gen 6+)

 

[King Smorgascake]

I don't think I could ever do a monotype run. I have had ideas for limited-type runs before, and once tried a run of X where I could only use Psychic, Ghost, Dark, and Fairy mons, but unfortunately my save became unusable because I didn't realize that you can only have one save file for 3DS Pokemon games you've downloaded even if you use multiple data cards to download the game twice. (I do hope to eventually try something like that again with a new savefile, not necessarily as an X game but possibly as one because Kalos has a lot of wild Pokemon variety to it, which is one of the few good points that game has imo).

I mainly tried it out of curiosity. I like Poison-types, and Kanto has plenty of those, so I've been doing a mono-Poison run on FireRed just to give it a go. It has been...ok. But not as enjoyable as a regular Nuzlocke. There was a particularly large stretch of the game (around Vermillion until getting the Silph Scope) where, due to multiple deaths and using up my catch on every route/location a Poison-type could be found, I had to tarry on with Arbok and Gloom/Vileplume, resulting in them being stupidly over-levelled at one point. It got a bit tedious, and I can see pretty much the same thing happening in any game unless Normal or Flying is the user's selected type.

And bad mons? No such thing. There's a run by QuietGuardian - shoutout to him - where he used nothing but Unown and beat the Elite Four with them. No such thing as a bad mon; I bet even Wobuffet can be used properly (as much as I hate the stupid thing).

The whole point of a Nuzlocke is using mons who you've never used before and caring about them. Hell, I try to use all of the Pokemon I catch, grind them all up to level forty or their final evolution (whichever comes first). That's part of my ruleset, and it makes it fun, especially with a death limit; it makes me care about each and every one of the Pokemon I catch.

It's not my cup of tea, per say, but Wobuffet is an absolute monster in the hands of a player with patience.

as a side note someone mentioned natures earlier, I'm one of those people that's hyper specific about natures, where if you have a defense lowering nature or an attack lowering nature that lowers someting you need, then that's almost an auto-box. On the other hand, if someone gets a good nature then I feel incined to use them regardless of how "good" they actually are. The most notable case being a delibird in a B2 run where I used because they were timid and they actually did a pretty good job in the E4. (mostly on iris's ice-weak team but still.)

I occasionally use what I call the 'Adamant Abra' clause. Namely, if I get a useful catch and could really, really use that pokemon in my team, but it has a Nature that reduces one of its most important stats and boosts another stat that it has absolutely no use for (in Abra's case, Adamant reducing its' excellent Special Attack in favour of its awful Attack), thereby ruining the pokemon, I allow myself to have another go by resetting and trying again. This must be for the same pokemon and is only permitted if (a) my run is in danger and I really need a good catch, and (b) the Nature must only be one detrimental to the pokemon itself; i.e. if I try again and it gets something that's not desirable, but also doesn't really ruin the pokemon either, then that's what I have to stick with and I don't permit myself to keep trying until I get one of the best Natures for said pokemon. I can't try for a different pokemon, either; it has to be exactly the same species and evolutionary stage.

I feel it's ok to do this occasionally as I've never really liked Natures very much and rarely seem get ones that actually improve a pokemon; usually just bad or indifferent ones.

I agree about the good Natures though. There have been a few pokemon I've caught simply because they were a first encounter and didn't plan to use, and then I see they have a really useful Nature and I think 'why not'?

 

[greenchu]

I occasionally use what I call the 'Adamant Abra' clause. Namely, if I get a useful catch and could really, really use that pokemon in my team, but it has a Nature that reduces one of its most important stats and boosts another stat that it has absolutely no use for (in Abra's case, Adamant reducing its' excellent Special Attack in favour of its awful Attack), thereby ruining the pokemon, I allow myself to have another go by resetting and trying again. This must be for the same pokemon and is only permitted if (a) my run is in danger and I really need a good catch, and (b) the Nature must only be one detrimental to the pokemon itself; i.e. if I try again and it gets something that's not desirable, but also doesn't really ruin the pokemon either, then that's what I have to stick with and I don't permit myself to keep trying until I get one of the best Natures for said pokemon. I can't try for a different pokemon, either; it has to be exactly the same species and evolutionary stage.

I feel it's ok to do this occasionally as I've never really liked Natures very much and rarely seem get ones that actually improve a pokemon; usually just bad or indifferent ones.

I agree about the good Natures though. There have been a few pokemon I've caught simply because they were a first encounter and didn't plan to use, and then I see they have a really useful Nature and I think 'why not'?

Adamant Abra is still better than most all other Psychic mons with neutral or beneficial natures. Natures account for a 10% buff/nerf, so if Adamant Alakazam was a mon its statline is basically 55/55/45/121.5/85/120. Compare it to like a neutral nature Gardevoir (which already has higher BST) with 68/65/65/125/115/80 and it's still pretty close. I'd argue bad natures should really only be a deterrent in rare cases, like if a Pokemon is dependent on a singular stat to be of any use, or it already has to rely too much on a mediocre stat. Alakazam has high Sp. Atk and Speed, meaning a bad nature won't screw it over too much since that stat will still be likely higher than the rest of your team, and it has another massive stat to rely on as well. Now something like a Modest Steelix on the other hand will still perform mostly as Steelix typically does, but sub-80 offensive stats is weak enough to consider dropping because of this. Regular Steelix has a hard enough time as-is dealing damage late game, so even Modest Steelix will be good for awhile in the run before falling off slightly before lategame.

On the bad mons thing in general, Nuzlocking Ultra Sun a bunch has really gotten me to think the best way to view bad mons is as 'tools' in a sense and no, not like how the elder in Dragon's Den says Pokemon shouldn't be used as tools. Bad Pokemon can still do useful things at times. I used to think I would never use Woobat/Swoobat for instance, but if you catch one in the cave after the 1st badge it can be pretty useful in the following routes with their density of Fighting, Grass, and Bug types. Delibird is a near-useless meme mon, but I had to grind one up to OHKO Totem Lurantis with Hustle Z-Bounce because I had no other answers for it. Male Salandit can beat Totem Lurantis as well if you weren't lucky enough to encounter a female. Totem Araquanid has forced me to use a lot of Pokemon that I wouldn't have used otherwise, though the only one I can immediately recall right now is Mawile. And when I played Y, for awhile half of my team was shitmons (Beedrill, Farfetch'd, and Dunsparce iirc) because they were useful early game and still provided use until midgame or so when I was able to replace them with better mons.

So yeah bad mons still have a use, just as good mons have a use. It's just that the use of good mons is applicable in more situations.

 

[RoseQuartz_18]

Two things for me:

1. I for one enjoy Nuzlocke stories/comics with talking Pokémon because it helps you see what's going on in their minds or get to know them better. And, yes, call me cheesy, but that includes Pokémon with funny accents. Unlike the kid from Dexter's Lab, I LOVE kids Mons with funny accents lmfao; I think they're neat

2. I once saw someone complain that they don't like how the Mons encourage their Trainer to keep going and see their journey to the end following a death or many deaths when said Trainer is halfway to considering giving up because of it. While I understand the beef with that since their fellow Pokémon are dying... my dude, we wouldn't have a story if they just up and went home. What do you want them to do? Throw the towel in on the spot instead of learning to cope better with their heartache that they're inevitably going to run into in life? Come on.

 

[Heather]

Two things for me:

1. I for one enjoy Nuzlocke stories/comics with talking Pokémon because it helps you see what's going on in their minds or get to know them better. And, yes, call me cheesy, but that includes Pokémon with funny accents. Unlike the kid from Dexter's Lab, I LOVE kids Mons with funny accents lmfao; I think they're neat

2. I once saw someone complain that they don't like how the Mons encourage their Trainer to keep going and see their journey to the end following a death or many deaths when said Trainer is halfway to considering giving up because of it. While I understand the beef with that since their fellow Pokémon are dying... my dude, we wouldn't have a story if they just up and went home. What do you want them to do? Throw the towel in on the spot instead of learning to cope better with their heartache that they're inevitably going to run into in life? Come on.

Relatedly, I saw a post earlier in this thread ragging on the trope of asking the team if they're okay with sticking around after the first death. Yes, this is a common trope, but it's a common trope because it fits the easiest in a narrative. Just outright ignoring the event isn't likely to work well for a protagonist who's not meant to be seen as callous or domineering-personality types that most nuzlocke writers shy away from for their protagonists. It may be tempting to avert the trope by waving the death off as a fluke, some kind of accident, but if you're writing as you're playing, you're going to be forced to confront it if several more deaths occur later, and not everyone is going to have a means to answer "why do these accidents keep happening" in a way that stays tonally consistent depending on how they explained the first accident to begin with. Yes, that conundrum can be avoided if one elects to write based off of a complete written log, but that's a technique that not all beginners will be well-suited to, because a gameplay log isn't going to magically fill in story beats and connective tissue. So for a lot of writers, that solemn conversation, had right then and there, is the simplest tool that solves the vast majority of their problems with the tonal whiplash surrounding death. Tropes are tools, and writers will naturally use them, no matter how frequently used they are by others, when they are effective.

 

[RoseQuartz_18]

Relatedly, I saw a post earlier in this thread ragging on the trope of asking the team if they're okay with sticking around after the first death. Yes, this is a common trope, but it's a common trope because it fits the easiest in a narrative. Just outright ignoring the event isn't likely to work well for a protagonist who's not meant to be seen as callous or domineering-personality types that most nuzlocke writers shy away from for their protagonists. It may be tempting to avert the trope by waving the death off as a fluke, some kind of accident, but if you're writing as you're playing, you're going to be forced to confront it if several more deaths occur later, and not everyone is going to have a means to answer "why do these accidents keep happening" in a way that stays tonally consistent depending on how they explained the first accident to begin with. Yes, that conundrum can be avoided if one elects to write based off of a complete written log, but that's a technique that not all beginners will be well-suited to, because a gameplay log isn't going to magically fill in story beats and connective tissue. So for a lot of writers, that solemn conversation, had right then and there, is the simplest tool that solves the vast majority of their problems with the tonal whiplash surrounding death. Tropes are tools, and writers will naturally use them, no matter how frequently used they are by others, when they are effective.

Not to mention, lots of people severely underestimate a Pokémon's loyalty to their Trainer. While this can be a bad thing if said Trainer is a titanic slimeball, more often than not, it takes far much more than a casualty that was most likely not even the Trainer's fault to begin with (like, it's not like the Trainer just up and took their fallen friend out sniper style; Jesus, even expert Trainers w/ high level Pokémon have so much control over what happens in a battle, it's less on them and more on stupid bad luck) to convince the entire team that their Trainer isn't worth their time. That just doesn't happen. Plus, blaming and outright abandoning your Trainer over something that was barely in their control AND they feel just as bad about? Especially if they were trying so hard to prevent it from happening? Dick move. Total dick move. Way to twist the knife, broski.

(That being said, the above would make for some juicy drama if it's like one/a couple Pokémon whose boxing gets written as leaving the team, but having all of or several Pokémon bail over it is just whack and mean-spirited, if not outright victim blaming)

Which story would you rather read? One where the MC suffers (doi, Nuzlocke; gonna happen, man), has time to breathe/cry and reasonably doubts themselves, but ultimately has an unbelievably powerful support source in their truest companions and eventually finds the strength to get up again and find that light at the end of the tunnel bc hey, by the end of the day, life is gonna kick you in the nuts as hard as it can, but at least you're not alone and have people/Mons who love and support you enough to wanna see you have a happy ending with them?

--Or one where the MC is told to give up by creatures who are supposed to be their friends and found family bc clearly every single bad thing that happens is always only their fault (sarcasm) and MC does it without question bc life is hard so why bother doing anything meaningful or uplifting, thereby ending the story on the most boring, unsatisfying note possible?

 

[kururu]

Honestly, I don't want to act all high and mighty about PChal, but... I really dislike him [or others!] reacting to Nuzlockes (especially without asking permission first?) and acting all analytical when sometimes, the Nuzlocke is either being done by somebody inexperienced, has a strange ruleset which isn't his preferred ruleset, or when choices are made that he wouldn't. It just feels like giving critique to somebody who isn't asking for it? (Then again, I dislike reaction videos unless it's either to something like a Nintendo Direct which is made by a big company, or when it's clear there's credit being given and that it's agreed upon by both parties.) I suppose that's why critique rules exist here.

I do miss Nuzlockes like the classic PBG one, or the good old McElroy Y Nuzlocke on Youtube. But on that topic: a failed Nuzlocke is not a failed Nuzlocke story. Even if it's a hardcore challenge, or a story being told. See: One of my favorite Youtube Nuzlocke videos was FlygonHGs No Dupes Fire-Type run of Diamond. It ends in a failure! But it tells an amazing story, and it's a fun video! [These thoughts began my idea of writing an essay on the different communities because, well. I saw PBG reacting to the reaction of his video.] I'm not gatekeeping, but I'm just saying that context matters for everything.

Also: Tropes are tools. Sometimes you might not like them, but some of them are simply the expected thing in a story. I think it'd be interesting if there was a protagonist who force rejected their team after a death and then there'd be an arc of the protagonist with a semi-new team, but the old team comes back in time for a major battle... but that won't fit into a lot of Nuzlocke stories, and that's fine. Sometimes the classics just work.