What makes a Pokemon good by YOUR definition?
Dec 29, 2012 0:39:30 GMT -8
Post by Dre on Dec 29, 2012 0:39:30 GMT -8
I think we should clarify what we both mean by "metagame" since I think we're talking about two different things. If in your definition, the metagame is whatever is popular at the moment, then yeah, maybe you can body players with Special Snorlaxes and I'd agree with that. I use the term to refer what's the most viable overall, which is much more static (especially for a game as old as RBY). Special Snorlaxes kind of don't make the cut for that and standard Snorlax is much better in general.
But what other people are using does affect how viable a pokemon is. For example, rhydon is much better in a meta where everyone is using zapdos, than in a meta where everyone dropped their zapdos for lapras. Chansey wouldn't be anywhere near as good as it is now if everyone ran only physical pokemon.
Tanklax is the kind of pokemon that you need to counter, especially if it's common. Aside from gengar, his counters are quite specific (requiring a specific moveset), and if you don't have one of his counters he can cause a lot of trouble.
He is a meta-defining pokemon because he isn't there to counter anything, he needs to be countered. He isn't like rhydon or chansey, in that they need specific pokemon on the opposing team for them to be worthwhile. He's good no matter what pokemon are on the opposing team, as long as his few true counters aren't on the team or have been removed.
That to me is the difference between a meta-dependent pokemon and an objectively good one. So I would say that regardless of which definition of meta we're using, tanklax is one of, if not the top pokemon in OU regardless.