M: In the game series in general for Pokemon, what are the fan unfavorites? I mean, we might get into the fan favorites later, but which are the ones that have been pushed by the company and most pushed back on by the fans? Because I see in Pokemon Go that one of the Dynamax characters for this weekend is the Garbodor or whatever, however it's pronounced. It's a pile of sentient trash. Personally, I like it, but in the ironic way where it's almost like a personification of the criticism that Pokemon suffered particularly early on when when detractors were saying that they weren't really even trying, they were just taking random crap they found around the house and putting eyes and a smile on it. In Pokemon Go, it pisses me off because there's something about the the visualization of the model's mesh versus the bounding box of contact that always causes my catch attempts to fall a little bit short, but that's got nothing to do with the creature. Anyway, that got me to wondering, what are the worst offenders of that corporate tendency to try to push something because it tested well, but it turns out that the tests were flawed or localized or not taking something into account? I mean, my personal version of that is Pikachu. I know it's pretty much the mascot of the entire series and has been for a while, but particularly in Pokemon Go, it's just ridiculous how much they seem to assume that anything with Pikachu on it will automatically will automatically increase the popularity, and in doing so, they've made me hate the little fucker. I would have said that about Pokemon in general, but in kind of a passive way, but once I started playing Go regularly, it has really sharpened. And I would say that among my favorites is Psyduck, but that's a personal opinion as well. It's like a platypus drawn like a Dilbert-style character who inflicts migraines on others. And that's exactly the kind of lightly dark amusement that appeals to me. So if you could go online, please, now that I've finished meandering through my thoughts, and try and find me a a list of, let's say, 25 of the most offensive Pokemon characters to the fans in terms of their resistance to having its quote-unquote popularity shoved on them as a corporate decision rather than a natural enjoyment, do this for the entire series, not just Pokemon Go. Although, if there is a creature who is particularly obnoxious to a particular subsection such as Pokemon Go or one of the other game styles, then go ahead and note that and include it, please. We're talking about initial pushback, by the way. Creatures that were introduced and that were attempted to be shoved down the fans' throats as being the next big thing. It doesn't matter if later on the players accepted it or even began to like it, either ironically or honestly. We're just talking about the initial reaction. And we're not talking about creatures in terms of their usability. We're talking about, like, it doesn't matter whether or not like, the Dynamax Shuckle seems to be agreed to be completely useless in Pokemon Go. But that doesn't mean that the creature itself is necessarily disliked, if that distinction is clear. We're talking about personal dislike because of corporate efforts to make people like it, not functionality in the game itself.

M: I feel like a lot of these aren't quite what I was talking about outside of the Pikachu and Garbodor. I'm wondering if there are any that really were, like, actively disliked by the fans because it was pushed on them as being something that should be popular, whether because of some sort of misguided idea that it should be popular. And so they put way too much into the emphasis on it as advertisement, or because it was tied into some sort of refreshing thing, like the discussion of the Dynamax forms. That's the attempt to introduce some sort of new game mechanism, so they used established characters. Now, people might have called the designs lazy, but the inclusion made sense because the creatures themselves were, well, at that point, they were, even if not loved, accepted as, like, baseline Pokémon. And while I don't necessarily have an argument with the inclusion of Mr. Mime, I don't feel like that creature has ever really been pushed as being some kind of corporate representative, mascot-level thing. I agree with all of the objections. I mean, it's a frickin' clown being treated as a creature. It's kind of disturbing as you get more humanoid with these things that you're supposed to capture and be the master of, and that was an early example of that problem. The Delibird, which I assume is pronounced like delivered, because it's all sort of a seasonal thing and a joke, but one that's not exactly mean-spirited, that really doesn't count in this situation, because Yes, it's silly, but it was... I'm trying to describe the difference from my own edification as well as yours, so give me a second and accept a little bit of rambling as I try and work this out in my head. Because it was seasonal, it is specifically not intended to be an overarching corporate mascot. It most certainly is supposed to be a mascot for its season, but... I accept it the same way I accept minor league baseball mascots. They might not end up being representative of their city, but as a personification of what's going on at that time and place, it's acceptable. And really, the reason I got deeply into it at all is that you mentioned that the mechanics of the thing were a problem, and that's not what I'm looking at, and that's not what you should be looking at, either. It doesn't matter if it kicked itself in the face as its special move. In fact, something that kicked itself in the face might be more accepted by the fans simply because it's adorably stupid, like a puppy peeing on itself. Yeah, the extra forms, that's more of the idea than the characters themselves, the creatures themselves. The reason why I started answering like this at all is because I got to the part about the animate objects, and that's one of those parts where I think that... Again, not quite part of this list unless there's nothing stronger than that in the fan opinion of things that they want to reject. And because I was thinking that for some of them, I don't like the idea, but I appreciate that a lot of the ones I do accept are some form of ghost. Like the... what's it called? The Poltegeist, or whatever, the one that's a teapot with a ghost inside that you can see. In a world with some sort of actual spiritual energy like that, of course everything's going to be haunted. If anything, it's fascinatingly weird, even if it's just in the way that you examine and then want to throw away because the entire thing is just too odd. But the idea of there being an entire ecological system where there is a niche, not just for ghosts, but for specific kinds of ghosts. Yeah, going through the rest, a lot of what I said applied to the rest of your entries. So what you're saying, basically, is that in terms of individual designs and how they decide to market it, the Pokémon people have mostly avoided major pitfalls. And that there are mostly complaints about how things were used, not in over-emphasis of particularly unappealing individual Pokémon in themselves. And with the character thing, it's just one of those issues that I think carried over from the initial game, where the idea wasn't necessarily clear, and because MMOs and just wandering around looking for quests wasn't part of the zeitgeist, it was necessary to have a direct opponent, and then it just has gone from there. Unless I'm misunderstanding, and the character, Hop, is particularly obnoxious in terms of how they've been implemented. Okay, try and get me a list, after you've responded to this, of an aggregate online list of that fan-created idea of Pokémon the fandom-hater. So I'd like to see what actually would live on those lists.

M: Yeah, sorry if I wasn't specific enough. That's what I wanted you to do. Go online and aggregate together the various, you know, lists that have been pulled together of the Pokémon the fans have decided are the worst ever for whatever reason. Give me 25 if you can. Don't worry about how heavily they were pushed. Just try and pull together the Pokémon the fans just hate the most now or in the past for whatever reason.

M: Just going to speak as I read. Little running commentary. I'm aware of Klefki. I have no idea what its use is in games. I can see their point, but I don't know if it's part of some sort of mechanism of the game, whether as a user thing or what. Like, it would be fine if collecting the first one gave you some... I'm talking about not in Go, but in the other games. If it was used as the thing you need to catch in order to start, you know, detecting keys and other hidden things on the game map or something. Or if it otherwise was implemented as some sort of collection addition. But if all it does is sit there as a bunch of keys, then yeah, I can't really argue with the laziness of it. Doubly so, because as you can tell, I just thought of at least one way in which the games could actually have made it an acceptable part of the Pokémon ecosystem instead of just something stuck in there. Voltorb, on the other hand, especially when you think about it from number one onward, that's the kind of objection that shows shallow thinking. Its existence is supposed to be a trap for the user. I can't remember if there was any visual indication, but I'm pretty sure in the first game they were included as that kind of player trap, where you go to pick up something that looks like any other item you should pick up and it turns out, hey, it's actually a fight you might not have been ready for. Now, it wasn't really a very tricky thing, but that plus its explanation for existence give it a reason. Now, I understand the arguments against it, but that kind of thing doesn't take into account its history. Whether it should keep existing is another argument to be had, but someone who's 15 years old saying that Voltorb is lazy when it's been around twice as long as they have and had a reason for existing, at least at first, is like someone... Hell, I can't think of a good direct comparison, but it's like criticizing current car designs as being inefficient in some form when it's as much kind of legacy habit as anything else. Even if you're right, you're not looking at the entire package and at least giving it the respect it's due before you try and kick it to the curb. And that's the reason why I'm going off on it at all. It's because if the list is something saying it's bad or lazy, then they don't understand why it exists at all. Yeah, the only thing saving the Vanillite line is that I kind of like the double cone it turns into. I think I said earlier I kind of like the idea of making sure that they are expressed as ghosts and not just creatures is interesting, but the idea of an entire line of these things to the point of being part of the Pokémon taxonomy, that's... yeah, I can't disagree with it. Like, maybe one factory is haunted, but this being such a common thing that, like, one in three ice pops in the Pokémon world might be infected with a ghost, that's either lazy or kind of disturbing. Especially when you consider how a toddler will just consume whatever's in front of them if it's made of ice cream, even if it is able to respond with cries cries of pain. Chandelure is getting a little bit closer, I can understand. I think with that, the problem is more that they all have the same design. Like, with... Oh, what would it be? It would be... it's a mechanical limitation. Like, if a Chandelure and all of its evolutionary forms were able to be a single type of Pokémon, but with different types of lamps and things like that instead of all looking the same, then it would be reasonable. But this implies that everyone who's a Pokémon ever in that world, or everyone who lives in that world, makes every candle and every lamp look exactly the same. I've already said about Garbodor, I like it just because it straight up embraces the idea. It's at the far end of original design and that kind of horseshoes back into being appealing to me. Barboach is... There's a type of creature I was expecting to see and already had my objection to the objection shaped for. It's that, yes, you want to try and make everything as exciting as possible, but part of the point is that sometimes something really bland turns into something really awesome. I mean, Barboach is no worse than Magikarp. Maybe Magikarp is a little bit more visually appealing, but Barboach is just like straight up, hey, here's a kind of tubular fish. But it turns into, if I remember correctly, Whiscash, which is a giant blue water and electric combination. I feel like any objection that doesn't take into account the entire evolution is just missing half the point of the evolution aspect of the game. I mean, if they're going to make that complaint, I would hold up as a complaint against that, the fact that the entire palmy evolution route isn't so much an evolution as a teddy bear standing up. While Barboach goes from something that is objectionably plain into something really unique. I mean, for a fish, it's still a fish, so unique is a limited term, but my point stands. I can't comment on the fossil combos. I don't think any of them are in Go, if they ever will be. I liked the original fossil versions, because they didn't look like the other things, and they weren't supposed to. They were supposed to be the early version, the ancient version, so the differentiation makes sense. Yeah, so I can't comment on that. Rhyperior? It's... For me, I agree in terms of design, probably not for the same reason, though. It's that there doesn't seem to be any kind of attribute connections to it. Like... Okay, as opposed to the Nidoqueen and Nidoking evolutions, where they get up on their hind legs, but you can still see how one could change into the other. There are other creatures like that, where the change is hyperdrastic. I mean, we're just talking about the Whiscash, but at least that follows the same color scheme. And the rest that I'm thinking of off the top are bugs, and they have the idea of a larva form already in there, so it doesn't count. Dunsparce I can't defend in any way. Again, my experience has just been with Go, but yeah, the evolution, even, it's kind of like with the Pawmee, where it's just, hey, it's a different version of the same thing. Maybe it has a use in the game, but... Yeah, it looks like something that's a caterpillar that just stays a caterpillar. Yeah, Mr. Mime is just the start of problems that you have with creatures that at least show some kind of human-level intelligence, even if it's low-level, that are kept in balls and taken care of as though they were animals. Yeah, I can't really object to Mime Jr. In fact, that's worse than the Mr. Mime thing, just in terms of, hey, here's something no one likes, let's try and make a Muppet Babies version of it. Just in terms of, hey, here's something no one likes, let's try and make a Muppet Babies version of it. I don't mind the idea of Unown, but I definitely think it was not implemented well, and I can't really defend it. Its entire existence, it was... Was that Generation 1 or 2 that they showed up in? I think that it gets a little bit of leeway, or at least its creators do, because they were trying something different with very limited hardware. But there really has not been a good enough attempt to justify its existence in 27 different forms. Yeah, I can't really defend Clink either. The aggregation theme can be repeated. It just, it's, I don't dislike it, I just can't really defend it from this list. Oh, thank God, no one else seems to like Snubbull either, I don't know why. I can understand why people like Bulldogs. They're so ugly that they're cute, and there's kind of that feeling that humans did this to wolves, we kind of have to love them. So, but, that ugliness is part of the appeal, so when you have an attempt to take this ugly thing and make it cute again by... It just, I don't like anything about it. Don't know Maractus or Grimmsnarl. Yeah, Zubat, its implementation was annoying. I don't think that it actually deserves any grief, particularly, again, because this was during Generation 1 design, when the idea of generations wasn't even a thing. They didn't know this was going to work, so the fact that it was minimalist, it's acceptable, and the fact that it doesn't have eyes because it lives in the dark, everything about it makes sense. So any objection is either because it was fucking annoying to deal with in a cave if you're an older player, or if you're younger, it's because you're not taking into account why it exists the way it does, and so you're just showing your ignorance. Bidoof is stupid. His evolution, I think it's called like Bibarel, there's something about it that I like in that its expression is shell-shocked, as far as my response to it is. Sigilyph, I don't know why it exists. And I don't mean that derogatorily, I mean that literally. I don't know if it played some sort of part in a storyline in the main games or what, but yeah, I don't see why it would exist, or what it's even supposed to be representing. Staravia, that one I understand but don't agree with. There are so many birds in Pokemon, and in reality, that there's going to be a worst one, of course, just by necessity. So it might be the worst bird, but that doesn't mean it deserves to be lumped in with things like Sigilyph. Yeah, Burmy just seems, I don't see its purpose, makes sense. The Azurill sequence just seems like a broken appeal to a subset of people who like cute things. Not sure what Drapion or Fione is. And Tranquil, isn't that part of the Unfeasant family? So that goes back to the whole, you can't dislike one, especially the middle one, without having an explanatory reason. Yes, please do an online poll of the last year or so. And I mean poll as in checking in on, not literally going and asking. But please go online and try and pull together the current state of hatred for Pokémon at this point. Give me the top 25 disliked, but only within fan discussions for the last year. Unless you need extra material to work with or a way to do tiebreakers, try and avoid the more polished lists. I feel like those might not be using stale information, but maybe opinions that are getting calcified or a little bit older.