Pokemon, Sequels and Perception of Change

If you see discussions about video games online you likely have heard about a sentiment that Pokemon as a series is stale and unwilling to change. Looking at the “mainline”[1] games at a glance it is easy to see why: All of the games share a wide variety of tropes: The player begins the adventure in a small cozy town, chooses a starter between Fire/Water/Grass types, engages in many simplistic battles, has to defeat regional leaders that usually stick to a single type, gets the ability to make their Pokemon cut grass, swim and fly, cleanses their region from some type of evil team, faces the cover legendary Pokemon, reaches the credits by defeating the champion and entering the hall of fame and after this, is able to access a couple of side challenges, new areas, mini-games and of course, can complete the Pokedex by “catching them all”. Longtime followers of the series are not wrong about something feeling off, the series has several problems regarding its presentation and ability to satisfy the myriad of desires of its huge and diverse fanbase. Stagnation is not one of them.

Flashy Changes

Pokemon games treat their features as disposable. Often these are tech gimmicks: Companion apps, peripherals, minigames to show off the console capabilities and make co-op more appealing. Sometimes certain features feel more experimental and don’t make the cut in sequels. Despite looking light on big changes, Black & White (2010) in particular are notable with the number of orphaned mechanics. Do you remember Triple Battles? Some mechanics come and go between games. Heartgold & Soulsilver (2009) allow the player to walk around with their mon. If you have enjoyed that you can also see it again in Lets Go:Pikachu & Eevee (2018)… in a more limited form. Some cuts are more brutal. Mega Evolutions were a highly advertised feature for 2 generations and then disappeared into the aether. Remember Battle Frontier? Press F to pay respects…

From this angle, Pokemon games certainly “innovate” a lot, too much perhaps. “Oh these aren’t real, just gimmicks” you might say. But they have real thought and effort behind them all the same. They don’t feel tangible in large part because they don’t stick around. This is a constant in game history: No matter how much players may speak of innovation, they always seek familiarity in sequels. And this creates a paradoxical response to Pokemon games, people think Pokemon is stale because it changes too much. One thing you might like in a game may disappear completely in the next. Sword & Shield (2019) gathered so much controversy because it showed that even the pocket monsters themselves aren’t safe from the cutting floor.

Is this merciless approach a good thing? You can argue that they make games more memorable in retrospect and it is admirable that Gamefreak commits so much to short-lived features. Many of the cutting decisions are justifiable in isolation. While there were many potential Mega Evolutions I would like to see, I still prefer regular evolutions and regional variants. I love Battle Frontier but it’s quite involved for a post-game attraction that most players don’t even attempt to complete. I also still stand in defense of the Dexit,[2] a limited, rotating roster can be potentially great for the series. Feature creep is also a real design problem, the designers can’t just continuously add and mix mechanics without risking oversaturation. Nevertheless, losing major features is never fun and especially so when they’re robbed from reaching full maturity. As much as people focus over the lightning-in-the-bottle achievements of pioneer games, most gameplay language and conveniences we take for granted today are the result of gradual perfection over multiple different series, development teams and even decades.

Gradual Changes

Thankfully, Pokemon made many gradual changes since the first sequels Gold & Silver (1999) and Crystal (2000) were released. It’s not a coincidence that the games which feel like a proper sequels the most are very well remembered among fans. Generation 2 games truly codified most of the big and small features Pokemon is known for today, from weather moves to being able to play as a girl. But really, every generation has made similar leaps. Gen 3 entries brought the familiar sprites to the games, added key mechanics like Natures and Double Battles. Gen 4 added many staple items, reworked how the damage was calculated and made many improvements that made battling with other players viable. I have stated that Gen 5 was full of experimental features, but the developers seem to have kept a lot of ideas around. Z Crystals in Gen 7 look like they have evolved from the abandoned Gem mechanic, they were then developed further into Dynamax feature. Pet interactions and Hidden Abilities from the Dream World feature were realized much better in subsequent games. These are still relatively big compared to the many subtle additions to the games. Quality of Life improvements, small adjustments in base Pokemon stats, updated mechanics, easier navigation of the world, more moves, more items…Not only that, these stuff aren’t just added for the sake of more content. In the last few gens in particular Gamefreak seems very interested in making mons more life-like and increasing the tactical depth of the games And of course, every new generation comes with a host of new and old but painted critters. When listing like this in conjunction with the big gimmicks added, tech migration and frantic-looking development cycle this is nothing short of impressive. Compared with other venerable game series, and I use this word rarely when talking about media, this assessment becomes objectively true. This is not really about whether the changes are good, or worth paying attention to, the right kind or unable to answer a core dissatisfaction. (ex. “battles should be real time!!!”) Imagine a new Shin Megami Tensei game with 100 previously unseen demons or an Elder Scrolls sequel with 30 new spells and 2 new spell categories. The level of change Pokemon games go through are usually only seen in reboots to old and dormant series.

The changes are impactful too. Some object to this by claiming that mechanical changes are mostly relevant to the competitive scene. In truth, the metagame always finds its way one way or another, but even minor changes make the older games feel weird. Despite replaying the games over the years again and again, today I cannot return to the games older than Diamond & Pearl (2006). Sure, when you pick the Water starter and go through battles by choosing the strongest Water attack available, they are not that different. But when I put any amount of thought into the mechanics, I cannot just get through the incredibly sparse distribution of level up moves, not having future evolutions around, so many mons being impossibly grating to level up or near useless in battles. After playing B & W I instinctively expected TMs [3] to be reusable. But even those games feel a little strange with the absence of the Fairy type. And I am not alone in such feelings. S & S sparked a controversy by a decision to have a previously optional item that gives passive mons in the trainer’s party experience always switched on. Many thought that it made the game too easy, which is another fascinating topic related to fan perception, but even this minor change clearly mattered.

This is why it is ignorant to criticize the series as being stagnant. This applies to most other series too. People often discuss every minor difference in Souls games in meticulous detail but to onlookers like me, it’s just an armored person rolling around and hitting big weepy monsters with a broadsword. In some sense, both observations are equally correct. When two things have many similarities the differences only become more visible on a close look. And it is fine to be ignorant about the details of a game, but it is not fine to pass the ignorance as insightful criticism. Pokemon is unlikely to be affected by some loud voices in social media, but higher standards for game criticism can only improve the way people perceive games. Players owe themselves and the creators the chance to think more seriously about games and at least should be critical enough to not want groundbreaking changes and still expect the games to evoke childhood nostalgia at the same time.

That Which Remains the Same

Having written all this, there are notables cases where people are justified to feel a stagnant air in the series:

The visuals have been… underwhelming. But before that point, let’s address a common type of argument: Attributing clear creative decisions to laziness or pure irrationality is plainly bad criticism. Pokemon’s visuals are like that in part because there is a faithful commitment to minimalism and consistency. It isn’t that helpful to compare mainline games’ visuals to games like Pokemon Stadium(1999). Those games were designed with spectacle in mind. Mainline games give brief and unimpressive animations to basic, low damage, early game moves like Tackle or Scratch because battles are intended to be reasonably fast. But Stadium-like games don’t have such concerns, they can take their sweet time in long wind-ups and reactions. Minimalist visuals also fit handheld screens better, for example flashing screens can become overwhelming. [4] Minimalism also makes consistency easier. Majority of the moves in the games share animations throughout the series. [5] Environments, rooms, and human NPC designs are generally unmistakably “Pokemon”. Even the monsters themselves avoid overly busy designs and are able to carry a level of consistency between a ball with eyes and a mythical dragon while also avoiding mons blending into one another. And this direction has paid off: At its worst the visuals have still kept a level of charm despite whatever limitations they have been under. At their best they burst with life and emotion. And yet…

I have always had this uneasy feeling that the visuals have been a little low-balled. Not true for the first two generations, in fact they have tested the limits of their platforms, Gen 3 has a serviceable “this is a Pokemon game” look but not much more, Gen 4 is crisp and colorful enough to serve as a baseline for the visual quality of the series but even less experimental than Gen 3. Gen 5 looks admirable in spades but is let down by the hardware somewhat, Gen 6 has a lot of ideas but experienced the ever-painful switch to 3D, Gen 7 is better at realizing these ideas but lacks the passive benefits of a platform upgrade. Gen 8 without a doubt occasionally has the best looks of any Pokemon game so far, at the same time Pokemon Brilliant Diamond & Shining Pearl (2021) uses funko-pop looking characters in the overworld. The series’ visuals became brighter, sharper, more colorful, jumped to 3D, improved upon that, but as the years passed and hardware became more and more powerful, the expectation of a true breakthrough grew larger and larger and so far, it has yet to be fulfilled. Even now; there are no expressive human faces, no consistently fluid animation, no true collusion or particle physics, no real lightning, no detailed textures, nothing to show people that these are AAA console games from the current period. The series doesn’t have to implement all or any of these features to look satisfyingly beautiful, and it should be stressed that battles being turn-based or aiming for a particular kind of stylized graphics is not the problem, but it needs to do something to make people say “Wow! This looks slick and new!” but for the moment, no matter how beautiful the visuals can be in places, they can’t hide the scars of troubled development. When discussing the graphics, the players might have unreasonable expectations, focus on the wrong things or make asinine assumptions about how game development works but the disappointment they feel is not cynical.

Another factor that doesn’t bring any favors is that the games don’t really require that much thought to play. Players don’t really have to engage with the big features and subtle changes on a deep level. Players often come to see the promised new content and then move on. When a game is presented as an amusement park, players treat it like one. You may design the attractions as intricately as you can, but if someone comes for a simple merry-go-round ride, they will not pay too much attention. And the problem isn’t easily solved by a difficulty-mode damage modifier, higher enemy levels or adding action gimmicks to battles. The games’ easy battles are not some kind of destructive flaw either, the series owes part of its charm to being able to be so non-threatening and non-demanding no matter what kind of player someone is, what their mood is, how busy they seem to be. You can always open up a game, lose yourself in a whimsical world and enjoy hanging out with dangerous pets for a couple of hours. Being challenging enough to demand dedication or create frustration at any level creates a mental filter for a lot of players. The solution is not obvious here. I have a lot of ideas for a Pokemon game that would cater to me the most but are they reasonable to ask for without compromising anything from the friendliness of the series? Hard to say. But perhaps fine-tuning flashy features like Mega Evolutions or Dynamax instead of throwing them away would go a long way towards an impression of progress in the eyes of returning players.

This task certainly would be much easier, unnecessary even, if the story played a heavier part. Here, Final Fantasy series is a good point of comparison. Like Pokemon, FF loves throwing away major game mechanics in each new installment and like Pokemon, many features across FF titles fall behind their true potential. Some of the games even gained notoriety for their design choices. But the series have never garnered a reputation for growing stale in huge part because the games all promise a completely new epic story in a unique setting. On Gamefreak’s part hand, they have always been keen on experimentation. For example, I am quite impressed with how B & W is able to characterize “N” by leaving most of it to the player’s observation. A lot of games and even movies or books are not confident enough in their writing or the audience to do so. Even G & S gives a character profile for your rival deeper than anyone has ever asked for a Gameboy Color game. There is a actually lot to appreciate in the settings of Pokemon game, but you need to have an eye for fine details. But no matter how high they aim for their writing, it cannot overshadow the primary adventure people seek in the series. The main loop of the mainline games are heavily player-driven. The most memorable moments come from Shiny encounters, fainting a legendary mon on accident, a random battle that is surprisingly difficult, becoming champion with the guys you have been attached to or navigating self-imposed rules, not rising moments of tension or a punching line from a character. The real story of any mainline Pokemon game is the player’s journey to prove themselves as a trainer. A heavily guided tale that wants attention to dialogue is fundamentally different and likely gravely incompatible. For many players such a shift would be unpleasant not only because it distracts from the parts they care about but similar to a noticeable increase in complexity, it turns playing the game into an emotional investment. Not only would this make “just picking up” the game more difficult, if the investment isn’t rewarded satisfactorily it becomes actively hostile to future re-runs. In particular, it might bore children rather easily.

Conclusion

Pokemon games have experimented and evolved a lot in each sequel. In fact a good part of loud complaints come from disliking the changes, such as the switch to the 3D graphics, gradual embrace of the open world gameplay, removed features, discarding updated releases in favor of DLCs, the perceived downgrade in game’s difficulty and more. [6] But with a series as old as Pokemon, it is almost inevitable to feel a certain degree of weariness or develop unfulfilled expectations at some point, and certain key design choices don’t help with the impression. This matters not for the success of the games. The core appeal alone is strong enough to draw a lot of people. Even if the games truly became low-effort advertisements for merchandise, short of stopping creating new pocket monsters altogether, the series will not stop raking in cash. This matters because it gives insight about us. We are not great at perceiving change when it’s slow but also similarly bad at it when it’s fast enough to seem temporary. Inversely we often mistake the changes in ourselves for the change of the world around us. This is a weakness we need to overcome to be able to critique media, and sequels in particular without limiting ourselves but our expectations. It is relevant for the creators on how to approach their fanbases and future sequels. Sequels, expansions, DLCs and alike are useful for building on the good ideas and testing their limits, like changing a particular variable in a controlled environment. But if the sequels cannot walk in synth with the players, they can sow the seeds for a paradoxical desire for orthodoxy and reform at the same time. Players often can feel something is wrong but will often misidentify the issues. An important challenge for any developer is to look at the criticism and determine what’s actually causing the problem. Those who are dedicated to games critique have the power and responsibility to direct the discourse into a productive place. My tiny blog doesn’t matter at all at such a scale of course, but video creators and journalists with large audiences definitely influence how people discuss and perceive games. At least we should be able to see through the fog of hype and outrage.

Some ideas and franchises can be too big to extinguish but they can certainly burn their creators away. Pokemon itself has nearly become an example. While this is chiefly corporations’ fault, on our end, we can at least not be so sensitive about change (either in favor or against it) to take personal offense at creative decisions.

In any case Pocket Monsters provides us boundless ideas to ponder and gives us the chance to explore the human condition. Well, at least mine, it has claimed part of my brain for itself.

This article is written thanks to my dearest Patrons, namely: Effy, Laura Watson, Makkovar, Morgan, Olympia, Otakundead, Sasha. Also thanks to Alex(@punishedgenetic on Twitter) for his perfect editing work.

— —

[1] A designation that groups every game that adds a new generation of monsters with remakes and remasters of these games.

[2] The decision to not include a fairly big number of Pokemon in S & S in any shape of form. A lot of more were added with DLCs later but as of writing this 234 of them are still unavailable. This shocked the fans because it was completely unprecedented for a mainline Pokemon game, you could always theoretically obtain all the monsters in any of the previous games up to the game’s generation. Also the statements from the devs did not exactly help.

[3] Items that teach moves to Pokemon.

[4] In the first season of Pokemon anime, an episode titled “Electric Soldier Pokemon” caused episodes of epilepsy among viewers, some of them became hospitalized. It is not far-fetched to assume that from then on any decision about Pokemon products has kept this in mind.

[5] I don’t mean sharing actual animation rigs or meshes of course

[6] This is a topic fascinating enough to have an article on its own.