Discussion In Pokemon, what do you think of single-types and dual-types as concepts?

[winstein]

For a long time, I've noticed that in Pokemon, dual types get a bigger share of love compared to the single types. So for example, it's likely for a Fire/Grass-type to be loved compared to just pure Fire-type or pure Grass-type.

An example of this trend is on the topic of starter types. If a starter Pokemon ended up with a dual type, that would be more exciting that when they ended up being single type in all stages. The Generation 8 starters are an example, where I've heard of some who did not like that they did not gain a secondary type, though I need to point out that I love that they do this because it's a bold choice contrary to fan expectation. At other times, there are those who considered single-type Pokemon to be "boring" as opposed to a dual-type Pokemon. In some ways, there are fans of a Pokemon of a certain type, so a dual-type Pokemon gets more love because they have a larger demography compared to a single type.

This basically extends to competitive viability, where if there are similar Pokemon, the dual-type ones will be considered superior. As an example, there's Heracross as opposed to Pinsir and later on Sawk. Their types are Bug/Fighting, Bug-type, and Fighting-type respectively, and their attack and speed stats are the same. As it turns out, Heracross is considered the superior of the three, so it could be deduced that it's because Heracross's dual type made it perform the best, while the others did not reach the same potential. Another example would be Glalie and Froslass, where the latter's Ice/Ghost-type made it the more useful Pokemon compared to the former's pure Ice-type. Part of it could be because of how offensively superior dual-types are, gaining a power increase in two types as opposed to one, and how the marriage of two types give it neutralised weaknesses and compounded resistances.

That is not to say that single-types are necessarily inferior, because there are those that managed to punch above their weight and be viable among the dual-types. If not counting legendaries or Pokemon that circumvent their single-type by ability (e.g.: Cinderace's Libero bypassing the flaw in offence for being a single-type Pokemon), there might be like Rillaboom who is viable even though it's pure Grass-type. But a comment might exist that these Pokemon might as well be dual-typed to be even more useful, which goes back to how dual-types are viewed as being superior. For Pokemon's TCG, which only depicts Pokemon in single-types, a dual-type Pokemon can be of either one type if it allows (e.g.: Ludicolo could be either a Water-type or a Grass-type) while single-types are always only one specific type. I do think that the games do not provide any reason for single-types to get a bit of edge, exacerbating the "dual-types are superior" comment.

As to my opinion? While I do love a good dual-type so I can't claim to be contrary to popular belief, I genuinely think single-types are underdogs. They have much against their favour, so if something goes well for them, I am glad for it. It could be as simple as a single-type Pokemon being able to compete among the big dogs, with bonus points if the type is viewed as one of the worst ones like Grass- or Ice-types. Of course, it would help immensely if the games provide a bonus for single-types, but perhaps this would be something for the designers to figure out.

To reiterate the question, what is the opinion on single-types and the dual-types?

Thank you for reading.

 

[Mekanos]

I think it's hard for dual types to not be more interesting by default. A lot of times they have interesting combinations that make them stand out more (like how Grass and Rock, two types with 9 weaknesses between them, only have 4 combined, with Fighting being the only fairly common attack type), or have a thematic design that works really well with their type (Houndoom as a Dark/Fire hell hound being an obvious example). There are certainly a lot of monotype Pokemon I really love, but from a gameplay and theming perspective it's always going to be an uphill battle to make them as interesting as their dual type siblings. I think there should be some single types for variety's sake, but overall I don't feel strongly about them.

 

[Clov]

I like both single and dual type Pokemon. I don't think one's better than the other, and I don't think it matters whether a Pokemon is single type and dual type. The only thing that matters is if they're cute!

 

[meatbag]

I’m more about the design of a Pokemon than its competitive viability, and honestly I dunno if monotypes are inherently inferior? Pachirisu is pure Electric and it won a World Cup haha.

 

[winstein]

I’m more about the design of a Pokemon than its competitive viability, and honestly I dunno if monotypes are inherently inferior? Pachirisu is pure Electric and it won a World Cup haha.

As I have mentioned, the dual-type preference is not limited to competitive viability, as dual-types have the advantage of being loved by two demographics: the two types that they have. Regarding your mention on design, I do concur that it's an aspect that is independent from types, so it's still a valid way to like a Pokemon regardless of what type they fall under.

Single-types do have their time in the day, I agree, which is why I think they are underdogs: it's not everyday that you see them doing well. The Pachirisu example is also really an effective surprise, even though I have to wonder if it can be repeated after seeing what it offered. That's why I also love that Serperior is a really effective Grass-type, probably one of the better starters (especially Grass-type ones).

Thank you for reading.

 

[Dardan Sandiego]

I like both single and dual type Pokemon. I don't think one's better than the other, and I don't think it matters whether a Pokemon is single type and dual type. The only thing that matters is if they're cute!

The truth competitive Pokémon gamers don't want you to know.

 

[Sheldon]

I kinda dislike dual-types because I don't want to double up on types in my story playthrough teams. It'd be less of a headache if I could just pick THE grass type, THE fire type, THE Flying type and so on. You're Water/Fighting? Now you'd potentially drive out my starter AND take up the prescious fighting slot.

Competitively, it's true that dual-types inherently have an advantage in their better offensive output. But between move pool, abilities and stats, the game has enough other ways to make a pokemon stand out, that it's not a problem. Even then, sometimes single-types are prefered exactly because their single type is strong defensively and adding a secondary type would only gain them undesired weaknesses.

 

[meatbag]

As I have mentioned, the dual-type preference is not limited to competitive viability, as dual-types have the advantage of being loved by two demographics: the two types that they have.

That doesn’t really make sense to me. Surely there are people who like the aesthetics of specific types, but I’d wager the vast majority look at other aspects of design before the typing.

Like, Charizard is popular because it attracts the Fire and Flying crowds, it’s popular because it’s a potbellied, flame-tailed dragon.

That's why I also love that Serperior is a really effective Grass-type, probably one of the better starters (especially Grass-type ones)

Well I’m glad Serperior kicks ass!

You're Water/Fighting? Now you'd potentially drive out my starter AND take up the prescious fighting slot.

Always tough when I pick the Grass or Water starter, because usually there’s other Grass and Water mons in the first few routes whose designs I like just as much

 

[Sheldon]

Always tough when I pick the Grass or Water starter, because usually there’s other Grass and Water mons in the first few routes whose designs I like just as much

The biggest reason to go Fire starter: lack of competition for the slot. Because we all know Water and Grass starters are usually superior desigs.

 

[winstein]

The biggest reason to go Fire starter: lack of competition for the slot. Because we all know Water and Grass starters are usually superior desigs.

Yeah, I can see that. Not to mention: Fire-types are not as common as the other two (especially new designs), so the starter could very well be one of the better choices. Sinnoh is very infamous about it.

Ever since I picked Grass starters starting from Generation 5, I did not have a need to have one of the many Grass-types in the region, though my team rotation setup in Pokemon Moon provided room for one (Tsareena).

Thank you for reading.

 

[Brock Reiher]

I like single types more for the most part. dual types tend to be too flashy

 

[Chaotic Neutral]

Like many others, I don't necessarily like one more than the other. It just depends on the Pokémon in question, their design, their lore/dex entry, their personalities, their move pools, abilities, etc.

Sure, there can be interesting concepts born out of designing around a dual-type base. But then you have e.g. normal/flying. So it really just varies from individual to individual.

 

[Bowser Sr.]

I think both have their place, and always found it genuinely weird when fans get a bit grumpy about something not being a dual-type.

 

[kimbo99]

It kind of follows evolution/ecology. I like to use the example of an electric eel or jellyfish which is basically a fish(water) that has the ability to release electricity(electric). Then other animals are just single type for obvious reasons.

Looking back, Pokemon is probably worthy of it's own class and can probably be used as a segue into Ecology and Evolutionary biology. I'd probably prefer that than reading books on Darwin(no offense, his work is great but man it's a snoozefest, at least the way it was taught to me).

Anyways to OPs question, it's fine to have both. Having 3+types would probably make things really hard to balance.

 

[Kartina]

In my opinion dual types are more beloved because mono type pokemon are just more common and feel less special. Since it's pretty much impossible for mono type pokemons to be fewer than a specific dual type (unless it's flying/normal of course) there's no excitement for another mono water or mono fire, instead the idea of a new combination of type never seen or just a far less common combination it's inherently more exciting both casually and competitive.
But what do I know? My favourite type is normal and my favourite pokemons are mono normal.

 

[BassForever]

I kinda dislike dual-types because I don't want to double up on types in my story playthrough teams. It'd be less of a headache if I could just pick THE grass type, THE fire type, THE Flying type and so on. You're Water/Fighting? Now you'd potentially drive out my starter AND take up the prescious fighting slot.

Competitively, it's true that dual-types inherently have an advantage in their better offensive output. But between move pool, abilities and stats, the game has enough other ways to make a pokemon stand out, that it's not a problem. Even then, sometimes single-types are prefered exactly because their single type is strong defensively and adding a secondary type would only gain them undesired weaknesses.

For me, even in a casual playthrough setting, a monotype Pokémon has to be really strong to justify it's place on my team. Any Pokemon can be comically over leveled to solo a game, but spending 20 hours grinding to say you beat a Pokemon game with solo Luvdisc isn't winning me over.

It's just a simple numbers thing, there are 18 types and the player has 24 more slots. At max on your active team you can have 12/18 types. For each mono or dupe type you use that's 1 less type for dealing with whatever the game throws at you. If I'm trading versatility, I better be getting an absolute banger in return like a Machamp or Haxorus. Sure you can still give them type coverage, but that 50% stab bonus is a pretty big trade when the best way to beat Pokemon main games is to minimize getting hit.

 

[Sheldon]

For me, even in a casual playthrough setting, a monotype Pokémon has to be really strong to justify it's place on my team. Any Pokemon can be comically over leveled to solo a game, but spending 20 hours grinding to say you beat a Pokemon game with solo Luvdisc isn't winning me over.

It's just a simple numbers thing, there are 18 types and the player has 24 more slots. At max on your active team you can have 12/18 types. For each mono or dupe type you use that's 1 less type for dealing with whatever the game throws at you. If I'm trading versatility, I better be getting an absolute banger in return like a Machamp or Haxorus. Sure you can still give them type coverage, but that 50% stab bonus is a pretty big trade when the best way to beat Pokemon main games is to minimize getting hit.

I prevent my Pokemon from evolving until it makes story sense for them - for example after being the last mon standing in a crucial fight, overcoming a rival, or being the MVP of a gym - so foregoing a STAB bonus on my coverage moves isn't anything out of the ordinary.

In a Nuzlocke run or if the games were harder by default, I'd treat team-building much more efficently, but even with self-imposed handicaps and no overleveling you barely get a couple fights each playthrough that might pose a challenge.

 

[RochHoch]

Most single-types feel like a waste these days unless it's a pre-evo that turns into a dual-type

Like, Falinks is an awesome design, but it'd be even cooler as Fighting/Bug or Fighting/Steel. It's a shame they didn't let it live up to it's full potential. And don't get me started on Grapploct not being Water/Fighting. What were they thinking

They have the option to make monotypes both better in-game and cooler, and then just refused to take it. GameFreak is so weird about this stuff

 

[VolcanicDynamo]

I loooooooove dual type Pokemon. They're consistently some of my favorites. I appreciate their versatility, and some type combinations can really bring out the strengths of each type or compensate for one of the type's weaknesses. Water/Ground, Bug/Fighting, Bug/Electric, Water/Ghost, Steel/Flying, Steel/Ghost...and yes, even the now-infamous Fire/Fighting are just a few examples of dual typings that I've really enjoyed over the years. Heck, add a fighting or steel type to nearly any other type and my interest in that Pokemon will be raised a bit.

That's not to say that I don't use or enjoy monotype Pokemon. While my favorite Pokemon line is the dual type Bulbasaur line, my other favorite Pokemon line is the monotype Clefairy line. So it also depends on the individual Pokemon.

 

[Heron]

I don't have any preference in terms of design or concept.

With two exceptions, I guess. More irritants than anything.

1) Dual types who could easily be triple types and it's unclear why they chose the two that they did. Classic and oft-discussed example being Charizard as Fire / Flying which was clearly done in gen 1 for balance reasons. But Beedrill being Poison instead of Flying, when your first reaction to seeing it is "that's a flying bug", it must be bug/flying. Or Skrelp and Dragalge could all be poison / water and maybe dragon. Skrelp is poison / water, Dragalge is poison / dragon. It's not obvious and it's hard to keep straight in your head (fortunately in this case the name is the giveaway).

2) Dual types where there is no indication of their second type at all in their design. Why is Pheromosa a secondary fighting type? Why is Heliolisk a secondary normal type? And so on.

In terms of utility, I think 0.25x and 4x effectiveness are too much. Those need to be toned down. It absolutely destroys a lot of interesting pokemon when they have a 4x weakness to a common offensive type like fighting.

 

[meatbag]

Dual types where there is no indication of their second type at all in their design. Why is Pheromosa a secondary fighting type? Why is Heliolisk a secondary normal type? And so on.

Funnily enough, I wish Pokemon would be less upfront about their typings. I don’t need Oshawott to be blue to know it’s a water type. It’s an otter.

In terms of utility, I think 0.25x and 4x effectiveness are too much. Those need to be toned down. It absolutely destroys a lot of interesting pokemon when they have a 4x weakness to a common offensive type like fighting.

This is a great point, and I’m not a game designer, but surely there’s a way to adjust the numbers so the type advantages aren’t so crippling.

 

[Vantell]

I like them both. I think either of them can have a great fantasy around the Pokémon fulfilled.

 

[BassForever]

Pokemon's type chart has basically been a disaster from day 1 and I have no idea what they were thinking.

We have some pokemon classified by elements like fire, water, electric, ice, poison, and grass

We have pokemon defined by what they are like ghost, bug, rock, or dragon

We have pokemon defined by an attribute like the ability to fly (flying), the ability to manipulate things with their mind (psychic), or where they live (ground).

Then we have normal, which in gen 1 I guess you can argue was "non elemental", but that's largely gone out the window in later gens when things like Fire/Normal and Normal/Grass pokemon got introduce.

And finally we have fighting, a type that makes no sense because literally all Pokemon fight, and even if you want to say "humanoid hands/legs for martial arts" that went out the window with things like Heracross and Breloom.

Gen 2 introduces Dark (an element) and Steel (what the thing is) which are fine, but then Gen 6 added Fairy which depending upon the pokemon is either what it is, or the light element.

18 types and it's an absolute hodgepodge of things that make them up.