Discussion Do you think is it a good idea to make a Pokemon game fully doubles?

[dootrevenant666]

Do you think Singles is holding fan games back and that fan games should go full Doubles instead?

 

[wrigty12]

Nope.

Both battle styles have their purpose and when used correctly, each can work well in a game.

I prefer singles because I look for a well rounded game. Doubles are fun once in a while. Having doubles be the only style in an entire game will make me not want to play it, as it makes it feel more like a competitive battle simulator game than anything, or at least make you spend more time in battles and bloating that aspect compared to the rest of the game.

So, as a response to the question you've posed: in my opinion, fan games as a whole should not always go full doubles and singles is not holding anything back at all.

 

[Nutcase71733]

I dont mind it, but pokemon movepools should be changed to really work to the benefit of all possible team combos. Not all pokemon are as effective as others for double or even triple battles...Generally I prefer singles anyway.

 

[TheMentalOrder]

No, I think everyone should go for the playstyle they want for their fangames and balance it around it. That being said, balancing a singles game is different than balancing a doubles game.

 

[ShiroSky]

I would like to have the option to have all battles be double. I like double battles( triple and rotation too) and would love a game of double battles...as long as we can start off with two pokemon.

 

[jtrainor9708]

Pokemon Coloseum has all Double Battles in the story mode. It really depends on your goal for the game if you want all double battles.

 

[darkwingdaffy]

i actually thought of a neat idea where each Pokémon only gets one move but the entire game is doubles so that buffing moves could still be somewhat useful

 

[Katelyn888]

It depends on the game, I suppose. Love double battles and surprised that GF didn't capitalize on that in the early games.

My game has a healthy amount of doubles, but also 2v1, 3v1, singles, etc. For me, it's about having a nice variety of battles and as my game progresses, those battles get more synergistic to help increase difficulty and the like.

 

[bombastik18]

I strongly believe double battles are the way to go. They are more complex, and allow for the use of creative strategies. Especially considering some Pokémon are best suited for certain roles (Audino is best as a support, for example), and some moves are straight-up unusable in singles (Follow Me, Helping Hand, Decorate etc.)

 

[PKMNSyndicate]

Pokemon Coloseum has all Double Battles in the story mode. It really depends on your goal for the game if you want all double battles.

It's also part of the generation that introduced double battles and where the main core series modified the day/night mechanics after introducing it the game before (a possible reason why we have an umbreon/espeon)

 

[Karakter]

Nope.

Both battle styles have their purpose and when used correctly, each can work well in a game.

I prefer singles because I look for a well rounded game. Doubles are fun once in a while. Having doubles be the only style in an entire game will make me not want to play it, as it makes it feel more like a competitive battle simulator game than anything, or at least make you spend more time in battles and bloating that aspect compared to the rest of the game.

So, as a response to the question you've posed: in my opinion, fan games as a whole should not always go full doubles and singles is not holding anything back at all.

I'd like to disagree with this one, at least partially. One advantage doubles do have over singles (contrary to what the post I quoted said) is that the battles actually go by a lot faster. There's more Pokémon being damaged each turn, setup is way less viable and status conditions are weaker so stall is nearly impossible in doubles. Naturally, competitive battles and single-player battles are completely different (so the actual difference might be smaller or larger), but doubles matches there tend to last about a third to half as long as singles matches on average. If the time the player spends in battles is a concern, that means doubles are actually more viable. In the end, it fully depends on your vision for your game. I think both formats have their place, whether you want to go for one fully or have a mix of both.

Another consideration is simplicity: doubles multiplies the amount of different options and interactions by a LOT. This means double battles can become practically impossible to predict like one can create a near-perfect 'line' for single battles. This is a good thing or a bad thing depending on the kind of game you want to create - for games made for nuzlocking, the unpredictability of doubles could be a bad thing. If you want the player to experiment with tons of different options in order to get past an obstacle, doubles might instead be better. Every fangame has a different vision for the player, so there's no objective perfect mode. I personally like difficult games that let me experiment with a lot of options, so I love games that are doubles-only (try Salt & Shadow and Vanguard if you haven't already). Most mechanics in Pokémon are made for double battles as well, so singles battles can be a bit of a balancing nightmare. Setting up is far too strong in singles, and two Dragon Dances are usually enough to trivialise any battle. Problems like that are exacerbated by mechanics like Dynamax and Terastallization, which are equally unbalanced in singles (look at the gen 8 Dynamax ban and the gen 9 natdex Tera ban). One big consideration in singles' favour is trainer AI. Because doubles adds so many more options, the AI struggles to follow any strategy all that well. This could have a negative effect on difficulty depending on how you're building your trainers' teams.

Despite my personal bias towards doubles, the conclusion is that there's, well, no conclusion. My games will probably remain doubles-only because that's the stuff I like making, other people's preferences lie elsewhere. Some games might be being held back by a lack of double battles, but some might be perfectly suited to single battles.