Why have 3 different pokemon in one?

[ZOMGjesustruck]

why couldnt they just have 3 seperate pokemon instead of mushing them al into 1? good idea or bad?

 

[Pyr0]

3 in 1 with stamina controlling them is more unique.

 

[blubomber17]

This is good, because now we have a whole new original character. Besides, adding all three of those on their own would've been rather dumb.

 

[ZOMGjesustruck]

yeah but its unfair

 

[Athos]

Because the point of pokemon Red in Blue is that there were three different starting pokemon to choose from. If they put charmander in brawl, people would be wondering why squirtle wasn't put in. This way, they get the most popular form of each starting pokemon.

 

[Lexl5]

Because the point of pokemon Red in Blue is that there were three different starting pokemon to choose from. If they put charmander in brawl, people would be wondering why squirtle wasn't put in. This way, they get the most popular form of each starting pokemon.

i think he means why not have em ALL seperately?

 

[Magmar's Wrath]

yeah but its unfair

How so? That the other series don't have as many representatives? Pokémon does have 450+ characters.

Besides, it's not like the other series haven't included more characters in their PCs: Peach has Toad; King Dedede has Waddle Dee, Waddle Doo, and Gordo; and Pit has Palutena and the Centurions.

The Pokémon Trainer just brings out the way Pokémon was really meant to be seen: a Trainer giving the orders as his/her Pokémon whup the foe. Very few Pokémon games have the Pokémon fighting on their own.

 

[Don Tyrant]

yeah but its unfair

unfair to who, if the stamina factor is as Sakurai said it is, the user must blend the strengths of the three pokemon strategically, just imagine the skill that must be implemented into mastering this character. On the other end of the spectrum, the opponent can anticipate when the change will be made and punish the user-similar to what happens to some Sheik players when they are trying to change from Zelda. Their is no clear advantage, it will probably come down to who is the smarter player like usual.

 

[ZOMGjesustruck]

i think it would be better to have like if 1 dies u cant get it back like the iceclimbers

 

[Lexl5]

i think it would be better to have like if 1 dies u cant get it back like the iceclimbers

i think thats actually how it works. until all 3 die.

 

[GreatClayMonkey]

i think thats actually how it works. until all 3 die.

no its the same as zelda and sheik but with 3

 

[P.Vanity]

i think thats actually how it works. until all 3 die.

No way it doesn't. That would be like given them +2 extra stock than anyone else
I think the person before you meant that they should all be out at the same time?

 

[iron blade]

i think it would be better to have like if 1 dies u cant get it back like the iceclimbers

Why does everyone think this? THE POKEMON ARE ALL ONE CHARACTER. IF ONE DIES, THEY ALL DIE.

 

[Wiggles]

yeah but its unfair

I don't think it's unfair.

My theory is that the three pokemon will "lose stamina" or be knocked off the stage easier than a single opponent. Otherwise, we might start to see Brawl Tournements with banned characters.

 

[GreatClayMonkey]

you are all over complicating things it is the same as sheik and zelda. One dies they lose a stock and the one you had out comes back out

 

[Rhubarbo]

More original this way, duh! The starter were rightfully grouped together as one. I'm not a huge fan of the Stamina mechanic, as long as it doesn't hinder on gameplay it's cool. I do plan on maining PT btw, so I hpoe Stamina isn't a big deal.

 

[iron blade]

If you're good with the character it shouldn't be a problem unless it seriously affects your stats. Besides, stamina won't even exist if you swap out every once in a while.

 

[Pluvia's other account]

If you're good with the character it shouldn't be a problem unless it seriously affects your stats. Besides, stamina won't even exist if you swap out every once in a while.

Agreed.

 

[WarioII]

why couldnt they just have 3 seperate pokemon instead of mushing them al into 1? good idea or bad?

because its different and innovative and they would just take up character slots people would of suggested something like this if they did end up making them each their own character

 

[Gerudo Warrior]

why waste 3 slots. 3 pokemon that had no chance to warrant a spot. so they combine them. rep the old pk games to the max and create a new character that is completely original.

thumbs up brawl team!

 

[Black/Light]

why waste 3 slots. 3 pokemon that had no chance to warrant a spot. so they combine them. rep the old pk games to the max and create a new character that is completely original.

thumbs up brawl team!

Sigh*
I wish people would sthu about "slots". These are 3 friggin characters in one with as much time put in them as any new character. . . no difference other than the nit-picky BS like selectablity.

And here is why PT is in and works the way he works. . .

Satoshi Tajiri: TIME: How does that translate to the U.S.?
Tajiri: It's interesting, because in Japan, everybody goes for Pikachu. In the U.S., the characters Ash [Satoshi in Japan] and Pikachu are grouped together. American kids seem to like that. In America there are more products sold with Ash and Pikachu together, not just Pikachu alone. I think Americans actually understand the concept of Pokémon better than the Japanese. The Japanese focus on Pikachu, but what I think is important is the human aspect--you need Ash.

The human aspect is important to the marker of the series and this is by fare the best way to show whats important to the series. Pokemon aint about "flavors of the month" like Blaze/ Deoxy/ Lucario and so on.Pokemon is about a pokemon TRAINER on a journey to collect, train, befriend, breed, raise and battle as many pokemon as s/he can in order to go from pokemon trainer to pokemon master.

Pokemon Trainer repersents this aspect of the game (the foundation of said series) better than "just having the 3 starters as reg characters" could ever do.

 

[RedKnight]

Because its awesome...?

 

[Darkpaladin of Chaos]

why couldnt they just have 3 seperate pokemon instead of mushing them al into 1?

Because it's a good, creative and imaginative idea.

 

[Knyaguy]

Because of the uniqueness of 3 pokemon in 1 package.

 

[The Noob Legend]

Aren't these Pokemon using HP instead of damage?

Therefore if you lose all your HP, you put another one out.
Like the games, simple.

3 in 1 isn't that unfair.

Lets say you play with 3 stocks each.
The Pokemon loses all his HP, another goes out...
He is pushed off the stage and blasted away... 1 stock lost.

The PT has more options, but is equally the same.

 

[ricydafrog]

allows sakurai to put in sum of the main representatives in brawl without taking to much roster space= a good move

 

[Kyle29]

When i saw the pokemon trainer i thought of pikmin and how it could be applied to them. This idea opens up oppritunity to a lot of characters.

 

[ricydafrog]

When i saw the pokemon trainer i thought of pikmin and how it could be applied to them. This idea opens up oppritunity to a lot of characters.

Wouldn't they work more like ice climbers if you're thinking they'll operate like that?

 

[Twoje]

No way it doesn't. That would be like given them +2 extra stock than anyone else
I think the person before you meant that they should all be out at the same time?

Actually, it would give them 3x as many lives, not just +2.

Of course, you probably meant +2 stock per 1 stock everyone else has.

 

[Gary]

Asking why is like asking why have innovation whatsoever -_-

 

[kemkian]

they could have put like six different pokemon instead of just short thinking and getting that out of the way

 

[Kronzo]

Takes up less space on the character menu, and the stamina is a good idea so that you don't just play as the "highest tier" pokemon (I don't believe in tiers btw). kinda like that whole Zelda<Sheik thing.


I personally think it would be cool if you could unlock alot of diff pokemon, then you could choose 3 (or maybe even 6) when you choose pokemon trainer, and it wouldn't be unfair if they all shared stock and with the stamina thing.

Probably won't happen though.

 

[Sputnikk8156]

idc i still think PT is an amazing char.

 

[supergamer]

Think of it this way...They have stamina so no one plays with the strongest pokemon (Charizard). So if your opponet swithed out Ivysuar (at 250% and tired ) to Charizard then charizard would carry the burden of being knocked out early because his percentage is so high. In short they all share the same percentage.

 

[MysticKenji]

This way instead of being three characters, they are one elaborate character.

 

[guest]

It's creative, unique, and includes 3 pokemon while still leaving room for more pokemon spots.

Spoiler

Like Jigglypuff