Does Anyone Else Think Dragons Are Overrated?

[metalamor]

Yes, they're statistically the best type but I've never liked them. It's not that they take too long to evolve, either, because I love Tyranitar and it evolves along the same lines as Dragonite. But dragons don't fit into my style, because dragons are only super effective against other dragons. I have a problem with this because
1.) I don't care if dragons have a wide move pool. I loves me the STAB. Killing rampages just aren't the same if you don't get STAB.
2.) I love landing super effective hits, and dragons aren't widely used enough to make a dragon worth the slot on my team. For me, super effective moves are like STAB: mindless slaughter of my opponents just is't the same without "It's super effective!"
I use phrases like "mindless slaughter" because I am implying that even if a "not very effective" move that doesn't get STAB does a one-hit KO I don't get the same satisfaction I get from doing the most amount of damage possible.

These problems have been met with dragons that have more than one type (other than flying). I tried Flygon in Emerald and I was far from impressed. In fact I was more impressed with Shedinja than I was with Flygon. My GS water slots were always occupied by my favorites, Wooper and Totodile, so I never had any use for Kingdra. I am not including legendaries; of course a legendary dragon will do extremely well. And there are seventeen types with six slots in a party; I have to type my team with maximum efficiency when I'm playing to win (usually after I beat the game once I go back and re-make my team with favorites regardless of type). If dragon isn't going to be worth my while then I'll find something else paired with flying, ground, etc. that is more widely useful.

I mean, it's purely subjective. It's very hard to do significant damage to a dragon; they're worth a slot in a person's party just for that. They just don't mesh with my style of battle (which would probably get me killed to death competitively; the STAB and Super Effective bonuses are just for personal satisfaction, not strategy).

I don't hate dragons. There are some individual Pokemon I really like. Haxorus is the coolest-looking thing ever. I love Salamence; I wish you didn't get Bagon so late in the game. I would make an exception for a Salamence. Charizard, though not an official dragon, is my second favorite starter after Feraligatr. I like Dialga, Rayquaza, and Giratina on the legendary circuit. But as a type I just personally don't have any use for them and I get kind of annoyed when people think a team of all-dragons is the greatest thing ever. Strategically that's far from true and as someone who gets rather attached to her team I usually feel a bit insulted. You know what the greatest thing ever is? When a pajama-clad fetus (Musharna, that's what they look like to me) holds up against a giant fire-breathing hell lizard.

Does anyone else find dragons overrated or unnecessary? Or think other types get the job done better?

 

[Faye Scarlet]

I love the dragon type, especially legendary Dragons. They're "overrated" for a good reason: they're powerful, they're beautiful, they're ferocious, they're epic, and they're simply amazing. Dragon types are only super effective against dragons because only a powerful dragon could seriously hurt another powerful dragon (while ice kills dragons because reptiles are cold blooded).

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Dragons are the sole reason why Steel types are one of the 5 dominant types in the metagame. The rest of the sixteen types logically cannont resist the raw power of a Dragon. Getting rid of the type itself may help a bit, with the following changes:

Dratini and Dragonair (Water), Dragonite (Water/Flying), Kingdra (Water), Vibrara and Flygon (Bug/Ground), Altaria (Normal/Flying), Bagon and Shellgon (Fire), Salamence (Fire/Flying), Rayquaza (Flying), Gible, Gabite, and Garchomp (Dark/Ground), Dialga (Psychic/Steel), Palkia (Psychic/Water), Giratina (Psychic/Ghost), Axew, Fraxure, and Haxorus (Rock/Ground), Druddigon (Rock), Deino, Zweilous, and Hydreigon (Dark), Reshiram (Fire/Psychic), Zekrom (Electric/Psychic), and Kyurem (Ice/Psychic).

 

[Dr. Buni]

Dragon is basically the best type in the games, so no, the Dragon-Type Pokémon are not overrated.
I don't like them so much, except for Flygon and the Deino family, but it is pretty much understandable why they are so popular.

Wanna know what is overrated? Fire.

But answering your question, yes. I think the type is a bit unnecessary.

 

[metalamor]

I don't like steel much as a type, either xD I like lots of steel pokemon, though. I had a Lucario in my White 2 party and I liked her a lot, and in my Black I had a Bisharp that I liked, but literally everything steel is weak to is known for having especially high attack stats (fire, fighting, ground) while steel is a bit lacking in the special defense stat (a lot of powerful fire moves are special) or are paired with a type that makes them 4x weak to fighting (e.g. the very common steel/rock). All a person has to do is prepare for the steel type and BAM! Death everywhere! Not like dragon, which has such a large move pool that even prepping for one can fail.
That being said, I have stated that I like Dialga, whose combination of dragon and steel make it a BAMF. I know why everyone loves dragons; they're rightfully elevated. I just personally don't like using the type. Which is why if I were to raise competitive teams I would die to death, because for me it's preference and not strategy. Why have a bajillion pokemon if you're going to only raise the strongest ones (unless you're doing it competitively; I'm talking just within the context of the games)? When I started playing Pokemon many a year ago I used the strongest ones I ran into, I quickly learned their limits, and I grew bored. The thing that keeps the game fresh for me is finding ways to win the main game and some low-level competitive battles with non-typical Pokemon. I know I can't win against dragons and Snorlaxes (those are still big, right? ) with my "alternative team." Some Pokemon turn out to be genuinely terrible, and others are pleasantly surprising. I think dragons are overrated as a preference, not a strategy xD

However, speaking of dragon and steel I think they should have made them totally antagonistic types. I know they made steel resist dragon, but come on. What good does that do when steel has crappy special defense and most dragons can learn fire-type moves or earthquake? I have never seen a pokemon fall faster than a steel-type subjected to a super effective special move. Dragon should be weak to steel, and vice-versa, as a play on the knights and dragons rivalry

And I agree that fire is totally overrated. I like fire-types a lot, but it's something I readily admit.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Wanna know what is overrated? Fire.

No, that would be Water. Even Masuda is biased for them because it's his favorite type, which is why it'll never get nerfed. I: <

Fire is practically an underrated type, along with Grass, Electric, Ice, and Poison, because of Water types, Earthquake, and Stealth Rock. So really, we're pretty much limited to Fighting and Ground to rid of Steel types

I don't like steel much as a type, either xD I like lots of steel pokemon, though. I had a Lucario in my White 2 party and I liked her a lot, and in my Black I had a Bisharp that I liked, but literally everything steel is weak to is known for having especially high attack stats (fire, fighting, ground) while steel is a bit lacking in the special defense stat (a lot of powerful fire moves are special) or are paired with a type that makes them 4x weak to fighting (e.g. the very common steel/rock). All a person has to do is prepare for the steel type and BAM! Death everywhere! Not like dragon, which has such a large move pool that even prepping for one can fail.

Yet Steel types are one of the most dominant types in the metagame, along with Water, Fighting, Dragon, and Ground, regardless of its low SpD, which isn't even low enough for most of them to get OHKO'd by a non-SE special move. Steel/Rock is not common as there are only three lines that uses such a combination. It's actually Bug/Steel that's more common.

However, speaking of dragon and steel I think they should have made them totally antagonistic types. I know they made steel resist dragon, but come on. What good does that do when steel has crappy special defense and most dragons can learn fire-type moves or earthquake? I have never seen a pokemon fall faster than a steel-type subjected to a super effective special move. Dragon should be weak to steel, and vice-versa, as a play on the knights and dragons rivalry

An idea I haven't thought of, but this will not only make Steel types more common in the metagame, but also negate Ice types even more so since Water has already outclassed it for knowing Ice Beam and being Stealth Rock resistant.

 

[Dr. Buni]

Fire is practically an underrated type, along with Grass, Electric, Ice, and Poison, because of Water types, Earthquake, and Stealth Rock. So really, we're pretty much limited to Fighting and Ground to rid of Steel types

Water isn't overrated. Water is one of the best types along Dragon, Steel, Fighting and Ground. Fire is overrated because a lot of people loves the type and says that it is "da best1!!", even though it is a somewhat weak one. Like you said, Water types, Earthquake, and Stealth Rock makes the life of Fire-Types a bit too hard.

Overrated means that the thing receives more praise than it deserves, that is what happens with Fire.

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

If you train dragon types in-gameyou're gonna have a bad time.If you're talking appearance and design-wise, it's purely subjective.If you're talking about metagame usefulness, then Dragons rule the game. Almost all Dragon types are either OU or Uber. They are far from overrated. In fact, if anyone says that Dragon types are overrated in Competitive battling, then they are just underrating Dragon types.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Water isn't overrated. Water is one of the best types along Dragon, Steel, Fighting and Ground. Fire is overrated because a lot of people loves the type and says that it is "da best1!!", even though it is a somewhat weak one. Like you said, Water types, Earthquake, and Stealth Rock makes the life of Fire-Types a bit too hard.

Then should we get rid of Fire since Dragon outclasses the type, just like how Water outclasses Ice and Electric serving no purpose due to always having lackluster movepools? It seems like the game is better off with only Water, Fighting, Dragon, Steel, and Ground as they counter each other without the use for other types, with Fighting being the new Normal type.

Overrated means that the thing receives more praise than it deserves, that is what happens with Fire.

But by internet standards, it means something that's more popularity than anything deserves to die and believe the stuff they like are the best. Therefore, Fire, Grass, Ice, Electric, and Poison are underrated.

 

[metalamor]

If you train dragon types in-gameyou're gonna have a bad time.

LMAO YES. What is this metagame everyone is talking about? I am assuming competitive battling outside the game? Like, where you train hardcore and select the most strategic and powerful Pokemon to compete and anything less than perfect gets smashed? I do not normally do that type of battling because none of my favorites are competition-friendly.

I'm still surprised that steel types are used on a level where one would expect earthquake to be a common move, but I didn't think of steel/bug (I do heart Fortress and scizor xD). In-game it never seems like steel stands up to as much of a battering as it has a reputation for. Talk about disappointment, I caught Cobalion and all of its stats are lower than my regular non-legendaries. All of them. It gets knocked out so easily that even when it has an advantage it gets pretty battered.

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of something like steel being used at such a high level with the weaknesses I've encountered using it. I haven't encountered real weakness with dragons; they just don't suit my personal style. Which is not suited for upper levels of competition. The last time I did anything close to competitive battling I encountered soooooo many normal-types. The ones I like to call the "fat Pokemon"...Wigglytuff, Snorlax, Blissey...big normals thrown in with a couple of dragons, but this has been close to ten years ago. It used to be all about really high defense with limited weaknesses (or at least it was with the people I battled with). Steel has the really high defense but...maybe they're better competitively than they are in-game. I just envision their main weaknesses getting the shit exploited out of them...most dragons can learn Fire Blast.

I think an overrated type is just one that everybody likes but you personally don't, with all the types given as overrated on here. Water is a good type; it's not spectacular, but it's steady and reliable and it's paired with almost all the other types. I suppose I would like dragons better if I didn't spend so much time messing around in the main game.

 

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Currently, the top 5 most used Pokemon according to Smogon's OU tier include Ferrothorn, Scizor and Genesect. All 3 are bug/steel types. So yeah, Steel types are not overrated.

Fire Types are both overrated and underrated at the same time. Those who praise Fire Types greatly exaggerate while those who criticize Fire Types ignore all good points completely.

 

[Dr. Buni]

Then should we get rid of Fire since Dragon outclasses the type, just like how Water outclasses Ice and Electric serving no purpose due to always having lackluster movepools? It seems like the game is better off with only Water, Fighting, Dragon, Steel, and Ground as they counter each other without the use for other types, with Fighting being the new Normal type.

Of course not. You see, I am just trying to show that the Fire-Type is overrated by its fans, I don't care if there are better types out there. There is no point in removing a type because it isn't the best competitively. Plus, the game would suck badly with only Water, Fighting, Dragon, Steel and Ground as types.

But by internet standards, it means something that's more popularity than anything deserves to die and believe the stuff they like are the best. Therefore, Fire, Grass, Ice, Electric, and Poison are underrated.

Uh, I don't think that is the "true" definition of "overrated". Fire is overrated for the aforementioned reasons. Grass and Poison are not underrated, these types aren't really that good, so it makes sense too see them with low popularity. Same goes to Bug, Flying and Rock.

But as Ranger Jack Walker said, Fire can be underrated too. There a lot of people who like to criticize the type.

 

[Lord Clowncrete]

Nah, most of them are deserving of the hype. Their popularity is well justified. Most of the Dragon's designs are well appreciated. Most of them have the stats to back up their hype. You have extremely powerful moves like Outrage and D-Claw. Then you have setup moves like Dragon Dance and swords dance which take you stats beyond 600 within a turn. Dragon STAB is without doubt, the best in battling.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

Of course not. You see, I am just trying to show that the Fire-Type is overrated by its fans, I don't care if there are better types out there. There is no point in removing a type because it isn't the best competitively. Plus, the game would suck badly with only Water, Fighting, Dragon, Steel and Ground as types.

Then stop trying to underrate the less common types for not meeting competitive standards while most of us are trying to defend them about their niche. Datas have feelings too you know, according to KH Re: Coded.

Uh, I don't think that is the "true" definition of "overrated". Fire is overrated for the aforementioned reasons. Grass and Poison are not underrated, these types aren't really that good, so it makes sense too see them with low popularity. Same goes to Bug, Flying and Rock.

But if any of those types were paired with one of the dominant types, including Dragon, you would probably make an exception.

But as Ranger Jack Walker said, Fire can be underrated too. There a lot of people who like to criticize the type.

But wouldn't that make you hypocritical for what you said about Fire types?

 

[Proxima Centauri B]

I guess they are over rated because they are strong, but what I really think is over rated are Dragon type legendaries I dont have any problem with dragon Pokemon myself, I am using a few now, Haxorus in Black 2, Altaria in Emerald and going to have a Flygon in XD: Gale of Darkness, but Im not using them because they are strong, just because I like them. Personally Haxorus was just ok, not great. I usually prefer other Pokemon to dragons. I do think they have made a lot of Dragon legendaries and they should try exploring different concepts for future games, that's really the only problem I have with dragon Pokemon.

 

[Signas]

They're not overrated, it's justified because the type is hilariously unbalanced. Only one type resists them, and only weak to other Dragons and the worst type in the game? It's like GF is catering to the 12 year olds who love to use all Dragons who all have Hyper Beam.

 

[CynthiaLover]

I don't feel Dragons are overrated. On a personal note, I'm a huge dragon fan, and not just in the Pokemon world. On my dresser I must have at least 10 dragon statues, including a dragon Megatron. But that's another story.

Dragons are supposed to be mythological and rare, but also powerful. The Dragon-type is no different. It is one of the rarest types in the game, with only a handful of members outside of the legendary department. Dragons are supposed to be strong, as per their nature of origin. What person hasn't heard of a dragon being powerful in some fantasy or story book? It's their nature.

Anyway, the Dragon-type was designed to reflect that very mythological nature; strong, powerful, adaptable, but also rare and difficult to master. Dragons like Garchomp, Hydrogedon, Dragonite, and the legendary group like Dialga and Rayquaza reflect this description. So what if Dragon-types are only super effective against other dragons? That's why many of them have a sub-type, to expand their range. Dragon-types often have a wide selection of moves, too, so it can cover more ground. To balance this out, Dragon-types are difficult to raise, thus further reflecting the nature of the original creature.

Anyway, moving on. The reason Dragon-types are only super effective against itself is to balance out the fact that it is very powerful to begin with. But that's the point; dragons are powerful to begin with. So what if a STAB Dragon Claw doesn't do super effective damage against a Dark- or a Water-type, it will still hurt, regardless. You have to understand that it's the very nature of the beast to be immensely powerful.

If you ask me, Water-types are much more overrated. They are just too well balanced, offensively and defensively. They (usually) only have two weaknesses, though that can change pretty quickly, they can hit too many types with super effective moves, and they can learn a wide-range of moves. What's saying the Dragon-type isn't the same? Would you be complaining if Psychic- or Dark-types were this way? Water is far more overrated; it gets too much support and its balance it too perfect. Dragon-types are powerful in their raw state, yes, but they are much harder to perfect, and their weaknesses can hit much harder. Let's see how long a Dragonite will last against an Ice Beam. Not very long, if I know my typing well enough.

Again, you have to understand it's the very nature of the creature to be powerful, or at least pack enough punch to be useful. What legend, story, or myth about a dragon doesn't depict it as some sort of powerful being? But you must also understand that they are not invincible. If they were, then there would be no point in challenging a Dragon-type. Not one of the 17 types is invincible; they all have pros and cons. Dragon-types just tend to have more pros than cons. You have to see it from both sides, not just one or the other.

So, in short, no, Dragon-types are not overrated. They just simply reflect the very nature of the original creature they are based from; the dragon. Just like Fire-types reflect themselves as glass cannons (destructive but fragile, the very nature of fire itself), Dragon-types do the same thing.

 

[Dr. Buni]

Then stop trying to underrate the less common types for not meeting competitive standards while most of us are trying to defend them about their niche. Datas have feelings too you know, according to KH Re: Coded.

I am not trying to underrate anything. I am saying what I see every day on Pokémon forums.

But if any of those types were paired with one of the dominant types, including Dragon, you would probably make an exception.

And you are still missing my point. Funny, because as far as I know, you care a lot about the competitive scene, don't you? Again, let me explain: I don't care if the type is good or not for me to like, since two of my favorite types [flying and bug] are considered bad in the competitive scene. But it would be wrong to affirm that these two types are among the strong ones just because I like them. They are not. The best types in the games are the ones you mentioned early and unless Game Freak modifies the type chart, they will always be.

And no, I wouldn't make a exception, I don't decide what Pokémon is "good" or not.

But wouldn't that make you hypocritical for what you said about Fire types?

Not really. When we are talking about the competitive scene only, Fire ends up being a underrated type. But when we talk about Pokémon in general, it is an overrated type. It is not a black or white situation. It is not the case of Bug, Rock and Poison. These three types are definitely underrated.

 

[Ghetsis-Dennis]

I don't feel Dragons are overrated. On a personal note, I'm a huge dragon fan, and not just in the Pokemon world. On my dresser I must have at least 10 dragon statues, including a dragon Megatron. But that's another story.

Dragons are supposed to be mythological and rare, but also powerful. The Dragon-type is no different. It is one of the rarest types in the game, with only a handful of members outside of the legendary department. Dragons are supposed to be strong, as per their nature of origin. What person hasn't heard of a dragon being powerful in some fantasy or story book? It's their nature.

Anyway, the Dragon-type was designed to reflect that very mythological nature; strong, powerful, adaptable, but also rare and difficult to master. Dragons like Garchomp, Hydrogedon, Dragonite, and the legendary group like Dialga and Rayquaza reflect this description. So what if Dragon-types are only super effective against other dragons? That's why many of them have a sub-type, to expand their range. Dragon-types often have a wide selection of moves, too, so it can cover more ground. To balance this out, Dragon-types are difficult to raise, thus further reflecting the nature of the original creature.

Anyway, moving on. The reason Dragon-types are only super effective against itself is to balance out the fact that it is very powerful to begin with. But that's the point; dragons are powerful to begin with. So what if a STAB Dragon Claw doesn't do super effective damage against a Dark- or a Water-type, it will still hurt, regardless. You have to understand that it's the very nature of the beast to be immensely powerful.

If you ask me, Water-types are much more overrated. They are just too well balanced, offensively and defensively. They (usually) only have two weaknesses, though that can change pretty quickly, they can hit too many types with super effective moves, and they can learn a wide-range of moves. What's saying the Dragon-type isn't the same? Would you be complaining if Psychic- or Dark-types were this way? Water is far more overrated; it gets too much support and its balance it too perfect. Dragon-types are powerful in their raw state, yes, but they are much harder to perfect, and their weaknesses can hit much harder. Let's see how long a Dragonite will last against an Ice Beam. Not very long, if I know my typing well enough.

Again, you have to understand it's the very nature of the creature to be powerful, or at least pack enough punch to be useful. What legend, story, or myth about a dragon doesn't depict it as some sort of powerful being? But you must also understand that they are not invincible. If they were, then there would be no point in challenging a Dragon-type. Not one of the 17 types is invincible; they all have pros and cons. Dragon-types just tend to have more pros than cons. You have to see it from both sides, not just one or the other.

So, in short, no, Dragon-types are not overrated. They just simply reflect the very nature of the original creature they are based from; the dragon. Just like Fire-types reflect themselves as glass cannons (destructive but fragile, the very nature of fire itself), Dragon-types do the same thing.

Powerful or not, GF needs to give a few more resistances from Dragon to keep its raw power from literally destroying the game's balance (though I do agree with you about Water being OP). Sadly, Dragon outclasses Fire for not being a glass canon type (Dragon is basically a lightning bruiser type), giving another reason why my favorite type needs a bit of nerfing for other types to stand a chance.

 

[Winterdaze]

From a purely battling standpoint, no they aren't. Dragons live up to and exceed the hype surrounding their fighting prowess, there is almost nothing to lose and everything to gain by being a Dragon type. The extent to which they are lauded can be annoying, but rest assured there's a damn good reason for it.

But what makes them overrated to me from a conceptual standpoint is that they were designed to be the best Pokemon in the game, so they don't get any particular props from me for that. Their superiority over other types feels very contrived, which has embittered me towards them I guess. People tend to worship Dragon types purely by virtue of them being dragons. I don't get that inherent appeal, since as far as mythical creatures go, I don't consider dragons to be particularly interesting.