Pokemon games versus other franchises' titles

[Wukong]

There's been a fair bit of negativity swirling around the BDSP thread recently, of which I've definitely contributed to, due to information slowly being unveiled to the displeasure of many. So in the spirit of positivity, I wanted to create this thread to discuss why you are drawn to Pokémon games and what separates these games from those of other, perhaps objectively "better" franchises? For example I find myself thinking my favorite Pokémon games (Platinum, Emerald) compete with the likes of Zelda, Metroid and Mario which have produced games that are considered some of the greatest of all time. Pokémon games are rarely, if ever, heralded to such a degree. On paper this shouldn't even be a comparison. So why am I drawn to them?

I think it's because of the high degree of customization which: 1) leads to extraordinary replay value; and 2) makes a playthrough truly feel like "my" playthrough. While all of us would have beaten Cynthia to "beat" Platinum for example, it is nearly impossible for our runs to be have been exactly alike. We're almost guaranteed to have run at least slightly different teams or imposed different rules upon ourselves. The concept of building a team amongst a host of options in order to battle it out against a litany of bosses, is a concept I feel Pokémon does (or at least used to do) uniquely well. Pokémon is unique, I feel, in its nexus of team building and battling. I don't think any other monster collecting franchise quite nails the confluence of these two the same way the *best* Pokémon games used to.

Even amongst other JRPGs, in a classic game like Chrono Trigger while we may differ in how we use our party members, it is still essentially the same cast of characters we are all utilizing. That is very rarely, if ever, the case with Pokémon games.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on why I love Pokémon games and what makes them unique compared to other, great video game franchise titles. Curious to hear other people's thoughts on this.

 

[QuentinQuonce]

I don't really know what draws me back to Pokemon. I find the lore of the universe compelling and interesting, but that's true of the other video game franchises I like. So that must be part of it, but it can't be all of it.

I suppose, in the first place, it's that it's consistent. The core gameplay elements are simple and good and quite hard to do badly. This is as much a boon to the weaker entries in the series as it is to the better ones. Even with how much SwSh dumped on the usual formula, they still couldn't mess it up too much. But on reflection this is true of so many other series - Mario, for instance - so it can't just be that.

In the second place it's the inherent customisation aspect. Even in Gen I, there are so many different Pokemon that you can craft a team that's all your own. Even if I have the same six Pokemon as someone else, there's no guarantee we'd play the same, use the same moves or items, etc. And that facilitates discussion, experimentation, collaboration. There is no perfect team. But we keep trying nonetheless.

In the third place, though, I think what it really is is the replayability value. I don't just mean playing the games over and over, I mean putting additional hours into a save file that's long been completed. Whether it's in battle facilities, trying to beat my own records in minigames, breeding and catching, or even glitching. There is always more to do. The sheer range of minigames and sidequests - Mantine Surf, Pokeathlon, Contests, Musicals, Movies (okay I never did the last two but my point still stands). Even things like collecting all the forms of Unown or Vivillon. Collectathons are fun (at least when they're varied enough to make it interesting, which Pokemon is) and this is key to Pokemon's success.

This ties into the last point though it's distinct. I'm as much a collector as I am a battler. I enjoy replaying Gen III's Battle Frontier as much as I enjoy breeding shinies in USUM. I've spent hours breeding Pokemon with rare egg moves, top-tier stats, or that were shiny, which I've never used (and might never) for no other reason than because it was cool to have them.

And lastly, Pokemon is a wonderful game because it gives immense scope for people to design their own challenges. The core gameplay might not be too challenging (this varies from game to game though) but the versatility and expansiveness of the game allows for all manner of self-imposed challenges - Nuzlockes, monotypes, and all the rest - as well as the standard challenges like Pokedex completion. (Fun fact, Ribbon Master is about the last big challenge in Pokemon I've never attempted, though I'm sure I will someday). Again, this goes hand in hand with the point about replayability. Already completed a title? Just play it again with self-imposed rules or limitations.

So while there are a lot of factors, I'd say the immense replayability value of Pokemon is what does it for me.

 

[Ironmage]

One of the main things I enjoy with RPGs is exploring the mechanics and making interesting combinations out of the available options. Pokemon stands out with the sheer amount of different options available. One of the big reasons I think that is is the main series has parity between players and NPCs, so the game can operate with one large toolkit instead of one for players and a separate one for bosses. A lot of other RPGs are asymmetric between players and NPCs, so even if there's a really cool mechanic for a boss fight, you can't explore it further by trying it out yourself.

Postgame battle facilities, where I usually spend most of my time playing pokemon, usually impose more parity between player and opponent. The player no longer has the option of overlevelling or throwing out loads of items like they do in the maingame. My dislike of actually bothering to get good IVs aside, they are a test of what I want to be doing: making a working team out of whatever niche pick I've chosen that run.

It's also a main reason I'm not a fan of the totem battles in gen 7: they are much less symmetric than a gym leader is. This both means that it deprives me of seeing what can be done with their unique mechanics (e.g. summoning), but also worries me about what lies further in that direction. I like my status effects, and pokemon has a lot of very strong ones. In fact, many of them are probably too strong against a single opponent. That didn't matter previously, because there was not an expectation that hard fights would be against a single opponent. A lot of other RPGs fall into the problem of status being worthless from the player side because it would shut down challenging bosses if they were allowed to take effect so they just make the bosses immune (raids in gen 8 do this, and I'm very disappointed in them for doing so). In other words, pokemon's symmetry also makes sure that effects balanced against the player are also balanced against NPCs, further serving to increase the pool of useful options.

 

[MrHands]

I really like the PVP aspect of Pokémon. There's like 900 playable characters each with a nearly unlimited alterable skillset, AND they work together in a team of 6. That's a LOT of customization. Like with everyone else on this website the appeal of competitive Pokémon matches appeals to me. Actual Pokémon single player mode, post game, etc at this point doesn't really matter outside of nostalgia. Like yeah I'm excited for D/P remakes but that's just nostalgia talking. Am I really going to have fun grinding through the game with XP share stapled on against NPCs with virtually zero AI or competent movesets, most who don't even have a level advantage or a full team of 6? Not... really. But the Pokémon world is neat and there's a lot of nostalgia factor to me in the gen 4 games. I started in gen 1 but gen 4 is when I first got involved in the competitive community.

I think Pokémon games peaked in gen 6. XY were really basic bare bones games but they had breeding quality of life improvements, minigames to streamline EV training, and best of all 3d gameplay. They were arguably the biggest game upgrades the series has seen since gen 2. The was a lot of annoyance at how short XY was but due to the work involved in making like 600 3d models we accepted it... and patently waiting for Pokémon Z. But that never came and the series just degraded quickly since then. I'm nearly at a point where I'm done with buying Pokémon games entirely. Sword and Shield were truly awful and really put the nail in the coffin for the franchise considering the stupid games sold really well.

As for other franchises? They make an absolute mockery of Pokémon.

Call of Duty gets 1 per year releases yet still managed to have true triple-A quality because they trade off between three companies. The CoD games are very well made, beautiful graphically, and at least TRY to have a memorable storyline.

Zelda gets BOTW which is pretty much universally acclaimed to be one of the best open world games ever. It also gets high quality remakes and despite being a family friendly franchise actually respects the playerbase enough to have some basic levels of difficulty.

Mario gets frequent 2D platformer releases but also isn't afraid to branch into the 3d platformer role. It re-uses the character assets in other non-platformer games such as Mario Kart and Mario Party which take the wacky aspect of the Mario verse and apply it to fun multiplayer games.

GTA games are pretty much universally good. Even GTA 5 which has been heavily milked is pretty great. Rockstar has chosen to stick with one game and continuously upgrade leaving us with a uniquely deep online experience. Can you imagine if SwSh just got DLC with 20+ new Pokemon / maybe a few new areas to explore (and completed the dex) every 6 months? They could rake in easy money.

Minecraft is arguably the greatest game of all time. In development for ten years yet still is one of the most popular games with tens of millions of active players, no micro transactions, mod support, and gameplay that is continuously updated. Pixelmon is a Minecraft mod for Pokémon that 1-1 remakes the battle system even down to breeding and base stats and the result is arguably a superior experience to one found in any Pokémon game.

Final Fantasy is more a brand name than a single franchise but it's been going on for longer than Pokémon yet still has managed to break its own mold multiple times by trying different ideas via game mechanics or spin offs. It also has excellent stories, graphics, and seriously hard difficulties.

Resident Evil releases games nearly annually yet keeps the gameplay fresh by altering the story, enemies, and various game mechanics. Like Pokémon it has expanded to be a media franchise with comics, films etc.

Sonic the Hedgehog... had a film. Also lots of porn for some reason. DeviantART was a mistake.


Compared to almost any other franchise Pokémon games have been a half-assed joke especially over the past 10 years. I think there's some understanding that we can't expect 900 Pokémon models to be as well animated as a Final Fantasy main character but Gamefreak's unwillingness to expand the games or try anything new in the main series has been a huge issue. Legends Arceus does seem to be trying to break away from the old formula which is neat, but if we ignore the appeal of Pokémon characters the game itself looks C+ at best. If Legends Arceus was being produced by an indie studio and wasn't Pokémon would any of you here give a shit? And if Legends Arceus ends up being a half-baked open world adventure with like 80 Pokémon I'd rather just play a fan rom hack, Pixelmon, or a non Pokémon game all together. Pokémon battles are fun but the franchise itself really has a "quality" problem that needs to be addressed. The Pokémon name will only sell games for so long until the reputation gets burned for good. Just look what happened to Sonic.

 

[ScraftyIsTheBest]

Hmm. I guess the best thing I like about Pokemon is probably the world. The variety of creatures that Pokemon has, just the prospect of in each game visiting and exploring a new region, meeting new Pokemon, and meeting and battling new characters is always a fun thing to do, and the biggest thing I look forward to in any Pokemon game. The world, really. It's the thing I will always like the most about Pokemon, no matter what flaws there are with each individual entry, the world of Pokemon in and of itself is thoroughly enticing.

Another thing, as green_typhlosion has pointed out, is features. There are so many little things to do afterwards that keep me playing and interacting with my Pokemon in various ways, or even outside of it. Contests in Hoenn and Sinnoh. The Battle Frontier in Platinum. Pokeathlon. Pokemon World Tournament. Mantine Surfing. Finding Pokemon in Ultra Space. Pokemon Amie in X and Y, and the three minigames that came with it (my god these minigames are so damn cute!!!). And in addition to battle facilities, also online multi battles. I love the battling aspect, whether it be in the facilities or with other players online. I love battling and what makes Pokemon battles so good imo is the variety of creative strategies I can come up with. The facilities or PvP allow me much room to come up with creative strategies and try them out, and that's fun. It matters not if it's Smogon or official metas like VGC and BSS. It's super fun. Because there's so many mons, many with unique playstyles, and you can use them in a team of six.

And that ties into the point of flexibility and creativity. Because there's so many mons out there, it's so much fun both in-game and competitive wise to try out new team compositions, and just have a blast experimenting with and exploring different Pokemon's capabilities every time.

I guess those are the big things I love most about Pokemon. Just the world, being in that world, and the battling part. Pokemon is not my favorite franchise, but it's like a comfort food I'm always willing to go back to. Just being able to explore the Pokemon world and engage in battles with many different Pokemon is a fun experience, even if the game itself may not be the best on its platform.

Compared to almost any other franchise Pokémon games have been a half-assed joke especially over the past 10 years. I think there's some understanding that we can't expect 900 Pokémon models to be as well animated as a Final Fantasy main character but Gamefreak's unwillingness to expand the games or try anything new in the main series has been a huge issue. Legends Arceus does seem to be trying to break away from the old formula which is neat, but if we ignore the appeal of Pokémon characters the game itself looks C+ at best. If Legends Arceus was being produced by an indie studio and wasn't Pokémon would any of you here give a shit? And if Legends Arceus ends up being a half-baked open world adventure with like 80 Pokémon I'd rather just play a fan rom hack, Pixelmon, or a non Pokémon game all together. Pokémon battles are fun but the franchise itself really has a "quality" problem that needs to be addressed. The Pokémon name will only sell games for so long until the reputation gets burned for good.

I think the biggest issue with Pokemon is that its formula has stayed stagnant, but said formula was always inherently unsustainable from the start and now the cracks in the foundation are beginning to show. Not to mention from a business standpoint it's grown far bigger than it ever should have. The formula was always "keep adding new mons and content to the franchise+everything from the previous games", but sticking to the basic Game Boy formula with more content tagged on was always going to be impossible past some point, and I think with SwSh that point has been reached. At the point of SwSh there was too much stuff to manage, too many mons, items, abilities, etc. and because of the way the franchise has become TPC commands strict deadlines so that became impossible to manage in such a short period of time. Not to mention there's a quick jump from going 2D to 3D and now going full console.

Game Freak refusing to let go of their control over the IP is also detrimental because it's clear that full blown console graphics are something they are not good at, and clearly from that standpoint things would be significantly better if they got someone else like Monolith or Koei Tecmo or whatever who have far more experience with console games to work on Pokemon. Game Freak's entire experience has been on dedicated portable consoles, and the GB, GBA, DS, and 3DS are all weaker than their home console contemporaries, but now the market has changed and the Switch is a totally different beast from past "handhelds". I point that out because they have actively shown that they can at most stick to weaker hardware: Red and Green worked well for something as simple and weak as the Game Boy, and subsequent entries were fine for their platforms, but GF having never worked with a dedicated home console before means that they have severely dragged themselves behind. Game Freak also has a problem with being stuck in the past. This is already apparent with how the gameplay has largely remained the same thus far, and how the games in terms of gameplay are still in many, many ways stuck in the early 2000s, but I firmly believe they do not realize how different a beast the Switch is from the Game Boy, DS, or 3DS. I think Sword and Shield and even to an extent Legends are being developed as if they were dedicated portable games, which sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the other experiences the Switch has delivered (and especially in terms of how much they cost compared to previous Pokemon games). I know you bring up Gen 6 as the peak and I agree with you, and I thought Gen 7 was fine for what it was (Sun and Moon+USUM were fun in terms of spicing things up in terms of in-game gameplay imo), but now with the Switch you can tell the cracks in the foundation are really beginning to show.

I think Pokemon as a franchise is long overdue for an overhaul of sorts, really. There's been too much legacy content piled up that is impossible to manage, the franchise has grown too big and from a business standpoint the old crunch schedule that TPC has put Game Freak through for the past 20 years is now severely detrimental to the games, and Game Freak refusing to loosen their grip on Pokemon games is also detrimental because they are now forcing themselves to make games on hardware and standards that are clearly beyond their own experience/capabilities, when really they should either seek assistance from a developer that has more experience in making console-level games or just let someone else take the reins of making Pokemon games, since the stakes are much higher now. It has stuck to tradition for far too long, and said tradition was always going to be unviable past some point, and now with SwSh it's clear that there needs to be serious changes to both the design formula and possibly the business practices behind it in general, possibly a corporate revamp in that regard too.

 

[Samtendo09]

For me, the Pokémon franchise’s biggest strength is the multiplicity of possibilities. Some franchises were or became too afraid to allow major variation of their pre-established species (i.e. Mario franchises, at least as far as spin-offs are concerned) or were already limited or formulaic from the start (i.e. classic Mega Man formula) to the point where shaking the formula up might cause a conflict between the fanbase.

Even the mascot itself, Pikachu, isn’t always portrayed in a positive light (though most negative light are lighthearted and comical) such as bring involved as one of Cramorant’s possible forms after it uses Surf or Dive. Even with some formulaic ”checklist” Pokémon that got accused of unoriginality, there is still plenty other Pokémon that have basis of both commonly known and obscure species that allows plenty of potentials.

Others already pointed out the franchise’s biggest flaws, but there is another one that, while harmless at first, did ended up accumulated other problems with it.

Blatant Bias Towards Nostalgia

It is true that Generation 1 is the first generation, so that we should not treat it too harshly. It is true that it is where everything begins, as without it, we won’t get Johto, Hoenn, Sinnoh, and so on.

But it doesn’t excuse relying so much on Generation 1 - and another past generation in general - at risk of undermining or damaging the current generation.

Galar wasn’t so bad with the amount of Kanto pandering, but nonetheless, it is big enough to be a problem for many fans. But even the blatant, insincere pandering of Kanto in Gen 6 and 7 aren’t so bad - but still very problematic - when you consider what happened in Gen 2 as a whole.

Gen 2 is supposed to be the last Generation, and as a sequel to the Kanto games, it does make sense to have Kanto pandering. The execution on Kanto-related parts - no, the execution all-around make Gen 2 one of the weakest entries to date.

1. Team Rocket feels forced and while trying to make a last standing despite their struggling position makes sense… boy are they complete wusses. The roster of the grunts is barely better than the already limited and annoying selection they had back in Kanto, and the Admins are even worse in that they also use the goddamn same Pokémon the grunts uses! Only Archer stood out with using the Houndour line, even then it’s too little, too late at this point. HGSS have no improvements on their teams at all despite making the Executives more “distinct”.
   1. Petrel will make Nuzlockers hate him, with only the Koffing line for all six Pokémon slots, making him needlessly annoying. All of his Pokémon pack a Self-Destruct, or in Wheezing‘s case, Explosion, so he is a threat for certain, just not for a reason you would expect.
2. Too many of Gen 2 Pokémon are too rare and too weak at the same time. And those that have potential to be strong, like Heracross, are blundered by poor level up movepool or poor movepool in general. The intention is to make them more special, but since almost none of them can make up for the out-of-the-way rarity, it really undermines the values they seems to have.
3. Baby Pokémon, back in the days, were considering a poor mechanic despite the inherent cuteness. I still believe that Igglybuff is by far the worst Baby Pokémon in existence. Smoochum (despite the design), Elekid and Magby are good in my book though.
4. Half of Johto Gym Leaders only uses Kanto Pokémon, and only a very few Johto Gym Leaders uses a Johto Pokémon as their Ace. Morty’s Ace is excusable since… Well, who would use the disappointing Misdreavus (that cannot evolve in Gen 2, keep in mind) over the fan favorite Gengar?
5. Having to visit Kanto in the post-game is fantastic in concept. But beside the fact that it feels a bit barren, the level curve is as poor if not worse than in Johto, and this is also true for the Kanto Gym Leaders. Thankfully the Kanto Gym Leaders do use Johto Pokémon (not all of them, still) and Red to make for a pleasantly surprise final boss, but the negatives are still here.

Overall, the root of blatant nostalgia instead of properly make a good balance between old and new is in the root of the franchise’s very beginning. And not every franchise’s first entry is considered the best, either. Sonic 1’s level designs aged poorly, the first Super Mario Bros. is simple but rudemantory enough that it’s difficult to prefer it over later entries outside of nostalgia, and Mega Man 1, though the first batch of Robot Masters are easily memorable especially Cut Man, Guts Man and Elec Man, falls victim of imperfection and frustrating level designs.

This is especially true for Gen 1, if their countless glitches and inherent problems such as pure, unadultered imbalance in type chart and Pokémon in general is any indication, but despite valiant effort with Dark and Steel added to keep Paychic in check, Gen 2 is just another mixed bag, if not outright bad, in comparison to Sonic 2 (+ 3 & Knuckles), Super Mario Bros. 3 and Mega Man 2 respectively which not only did improved upon the first, but also ironed out to the point of greater success.

I start to think that it is because of how overtly reliant that Game Freak is to nostalgia as a whole to the point of insincerity really shows, and it was there in the very beginning. It wasn’t until about Generation 6 that the nostalgia overdose started to go on full force once again.

 

[Ironmage]

Overall, the root of blatant nostalgia instead of properly make a good balance between old and new is in the root of the franchise’s very beginning. And not every franchise’s first entry is considered the best, either. Sonic 1’s level designs aged poorly, the first Super Mario Bros. is simple but rudemantory enough that it’s difficult to prefer it over later entries outside of nostalgia, and Mega Man 1, though the first batch of Robot Masters are easily memorable especially Cut Man, Guts Man and Elec Man, falls victim of imperfection and frustrating level designs.

This is especially true for Gen 1, if their countless glitches and inherent problems such as pure, unadultered imbalance in type chart and Pokémon in general is any indication, but despite valiant effort with Dark and Steel added to keep Paychic in check, Gen 2 is just another mixed bag, if not outright bad, in comparison to Sonic 2 (+ 3 & Knuckles), Super Mario Bros. 3 and Mega Man 2 respectively which not only did improved upon the first, but also ironed out to the point of greater success.

When looking at that aspect, I end up thinking of how Zelda, Metroid, and (the international versions of) Mario all had a pretty divergent second game that usually isn't making any lists for top games of all time. Meanwhile, those series' third games went back to their original style and have massive acclaim that lasts even until the present. So perhaps if Gen 2 was doing its own thing, gen 3 would have been even better (which it's still quite good).

But this does bring back an issue I run into with this kind of discussion. I hear a lot about how Pokemon can't keep being the same game as it was 20+ years ago, when every game in a longtime series I've seriously enjoyed or am looking forward to on the Switch has been trying to keep to the game that series was previously. Heck, many of those series I only got into recently via their older catalog. What forces pokemon on Switch to be BotW (which, for the record, I don't like all that much) and not Megaman 11, Metroid Dread, Tropical Freeze, or the Advance Wars remake?

 

[bdt2002]

Back in the day, I used to see a lot of people compare the Pokémon franchise to the way games in the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise were released. Their whole point was that both franchises started as cult phenomena in the 90s before peaking in popularity in the 2000s and finally reaching a burn-out point in the 2010s where the developers didn’t have a clue what kind of games to release. Looking at Pokémon, we definitely saw this starting in Gen 5, when Game Freak made the permanent decision to split all of their games into pairs again and try their hand at a sequel game instead of the traditional definitive version we saw with previous Generations. Since then, their consistently has been an absolute mess.

BW2: Sequels of Black/White instead of a definitive version
ORAS: Remakes of Gen 3 Hoenn, but apparently sequels of X/Y...?
XY follow-up: Just flat-out doesn’t exist
USUM: They wanted sequels but ended up splitting the definitive version trope into two games instead

(Insert pause because I had to go in a store real fast)

Sword/Shield follow-up: Replaced entirely by a two-part DLC expansion since the game was rushed into 2019
Legends Arceus: Idk anymore

Like bruh make up your minds, Game Freak

 

[Samtendo09]

When looking at that aspect, I end up thinking of how Zelda, Metroid, and (the international versions of) Mario all had a pretty divergent second game that usually isn't making any lists for top games of all time. Meanwhile, those series' third games went back to their original style and have massive acclaim that lasts even until the present. So perhaps if Gen 2 was doing its own thing, gen 3 would have been even better (which it's still quite good).

But this does bring back an issue I run into with this kind of discussion. I hear a lot about how Pokemon can't keep being the same game as it was 20+ years ago, when every game in a longtime series I've seriously enjoyed or am looking forward to on the Switch has been trying to keep to the game that series was previously. Heck, many of those series I only got into recently via their older catalog. What forces pokemon on Switch to be BotW (which, for the record, I don't like all that much) and not Megaman 11, Metroid Dread, Tropical Freeze, or the Advance Wars remake?

One major difference is that the 2nd game have to do with gameplay in term of divergence, not necessarily the settings.

Pokémon never truly diverges from main gameplay in term of mainline games, and is more to do with an attempt to refine and iron out the gameplay in Gold and Silver, some which is a step forward, some which is a step back, but certsinly not a catastrophe.

There is not just the gameplay that caused the Pokémon franchise become too formulaic. There’s also:

• A designated evil team in each generation, some of which heavily involve with the boxart legendary.
• The Eight Gyms and Elite Four system, which the last two generations as of 2021 shakes up to an extent.
• Frequent Pokémon tropes in each region with only minor variations, i.e. early route Normal-type mammal, slow, insuffisently hard hitting Ice-type, Exceptional Dragon-type lines, Pika-Clone, etc, to the point these concepts started to feel forced.
• Gimmicky Pokémon for sake of gimmicks.
• Unnecessarily high pandering to a generation on a region it is not centered of, i.e. shower of Kanto references in a non-Kanto region, to the point of running risk of undermining the current region’s own values.
• Friendly rival since Gen 3. Thankfully Gen 8 did tried to make a balance, though too many cooks spoiled the soup in the main game.

Those are just the one I come of on top of my head. Game Freak also attempt to swap out any “super mechanic” in every new generation, but as of Dynamax, it started to sprout disastrous results if they said that they cares much about balance.

Other franchises avoided staleness because they introduced new mechanics that successfully introduces more depth and experimentation in the main game, as Mega Man 11 shows. Help that most are also optional to complete the game, which using them simply gives extra challenges. New Super Mario Bros. series is an exception due to recycled level designs and being too interchangable in-between the games, but they still managed to allow the level design to make the most of the new movements not possible in previous 2D Mario games.

Staleness can happens due to swapping out gameplay elements too abruptly and too often, as seen in the Paper Mario franchise (to the point the fanbase is fractioned), instead of expending upon the gameplay elements in the main game that would need some slight rework at best (Z-Moves), is severely underutilized (Mega Evolution), or is severely unbalanced (Dynamax, Z-Moves and Mega Evolution to an extent). All that can lead to further and further conflict between the already conflicting Pokémon fanbase.

And if the games happens to be way too interchangeable, it can lead to mockery due to sticking too hard to the formula. New Super Mario Bros. U is far from a bad game, but had it had more creativity and a different boss roster from Wii and 2, it might be a better Wii U launch title as first impressions manners a lot for consoles.

Pokémon started to have mockery sling at them to an overdrive, especially due to the amount of vehemous drama the vocal fanbase had caused, and there’s no denying that both the Pokémon franchise and the fanbase got their reputation starting to taint.

 

[Bakugames]

Friendly rival since Gen 3. Thankfully Gen 8 did tried to make a balance, though too many cooks spoiled the soup in the main game.

does any character who doesn't immediately call you a piece of shit gets the friendly rival label now? Hugh, cheren, barry, hell even brendan/may skew normal to not super nice to you.
I thought the whole point of the complaint originated from the gen 6 rivals just not being good rivals in the sense they had bad battles and didn't actually provide you with any rivalry (which is probably why they were called your friends instead), and then it just evolved into "any character who is too nice/very annoying in its niceness" with hau and hop.

What we need is just properly fleshed out rivals, not tropes. Ironically, hau and hop are the closest (and only) we get to a rival with some shred of deepness to it, even if faint and ignored by the narrative.

We also need to stop making the rivals force you on tutorials and overexplain things to u LOL

 

[bdt2002]

does any character who doesn't immediately call you a piece of shit gets the friendly rival label now? Hugh, cheren, barry, hell even brendan/may skew normal to not super nice to you.
I thought the whole point of the complaint originated from the gen 6 rivals just not being good rivals in the sense they had bad battles and didn't actually provide you with any rivalry (which is probably why they were called your friends instead), and then it just evolved into "any character who is too nice/very annoying in its niceness" with hau and hop.

What we need is just properly fleshed out rivals, not tropes. Ironically, hau and hop are the closest (and only) we get to a rival with some shred of deepness to it, even if faint and ignored by the narrative.

We also need to stop making the rivals force you on tutorials and overexplain things to u LOL

The rival characters are some of the most important characters to indirectly develop the setting of the game at hand, and I for one have always found it a bit odd that so many of them over the years have seemed so similar to one another. I'm sure we've all heard about the whole "Hop using Hau's animations" thing by now, but there's so much overlap here it's actually kind of funny. We've got Hop who eventually gains the same kind of goal as Bianca, Calem/Serena being very similar to Brendan/May, the whole "my rival has to battle me either at, before, or after Victory Road" trope that's been used in almost every game, and so much more. The only original rivals that fit my criteria are Wally from Hoenn and N from Unova, although N's history with Team Plasma is kinda but not exactly similar to Silver's history with Team Rocket.

My whole point is, I like original content better than reused content.

 

[Bakugames]

My whole point is, I like original content better than reused content.

Using basic storytelling, the rivals should at least reflect some of the story's main themes, be interesting, and have satisfying arcs. While some characters fit one or two, I don't think any of them fit all the categories (unless you count N as a rival). I think pokémon rivals are too underdeveloped, utilized for the wrong things and ignored in others that would improve the story, and often get stuck with annoying stuff like tutorial cutscenes and bogging down the gameplay

 

[bdt2002]

Using basic storytelling, the rivals should at least reflect some of the story's main themes, be interesting, and have satisfying arcs. While some characters fit one or two, I don't think any of them fit all the categories (unless you count N as a rival). I think pokémon rivals are too underdeveloped, utilized for the wrong things and ignored in others that would improve the story, and often get stuck with annoying stuff like tutorial cutscenes and bogging down the gameplay

Yeah, if rival characters were properly developed and utilized to their true potential, I feel like all of us would love these characters a LOT more.

 

[That Weirdd Guy]

I think everyone so far has talked about what I believe draws me most often back to Pokémon, being the world and sheer amount of different things you can do with the vast numbers of each individual Pokémon. However, I wanted to bring up the one thing that sustains my continued playing of the franchise even after I have been playing for 20+ years.

The unique feature I am taking about is simply being able to transfer Pokémon from the 3rd generation to the current generation. This sustains my continued play because it allows my journey with a select few Pokémon to continue. Pokémon is the only game that allows me to form such a strong bond with these pixelated creatures. For example I found a shiny Venonat recently in Pokémon FireRed in the safari zone, and I plan on beating each Elite Four up to generation 7. No other game, or rather franchise allows me this experience in my opinion.

Given that Venonat and by extension Venomoth has not made the Dexit cut you can see where my frustrations lie, and why I have not pursued that adventure since I know it cannot be fully completed. He is coming back in BDSP, and I pray by extension in the rest of gen 8. We shall see.

 

[DreamPrince]

Game Freak refusing to let go of their control over the IP is also detrimental because it's clear that full blown console graphics are something they are not good at, and clearly from that standpoint things would be significantly better if they got someone else like Monolith or Koei Tecmo or whatever who have far more experience with console games to work on Pokemon. Game Freak's entire experience has been on dedicated portable consoles, and the GB, GBA, DS, and 3DS are all weaker than their home console contemporaries, but now the market has changed and the Switch is a totally different beast from past "handhelds". I point that out because they have actively shown that they can at most stick to weaker hardware: Red and Green worked well for something as simple and weak as the Game Boy, and subsequent entries were fine for their platforms, but GF having never worked with a dedicated home console before means that they have severely dragged themselves behind. Game Freak also has a problem with being stuck in the past. This is already apparent with how the gameplay has largely remained the same thus far, and how the games in terms of gameplay are still in many, many ways stuck in the early 2000s, but I firmly believe they do not realize how different a beast the Switch is from the Game Boy, DS, or 3DS. I think Sword and Shield and even to an extent Legends are being developed as if they were dedicated portable games, which sticks out like a sore thumb compared to the other experiences the Switch has delivered (and especially in terms of how much they cost compared to previous Pokemon games). I know you bring up Gen 6 as the peak and I agree with you, and I thought Gen 7 was fine for what it was (Sun and Moon+USUM were fun in terms of spicing things up in terms of in-game gameplay imo), but now with the Switch you can tell the cracks in the foundation are really beginning to show.

I wonder if the reason GF was so hesitant to give up the franchise to another party was because of the fear that they would lose the rights to the Pokémon games. Do you guys remember “ Little Town Hero “ ? If you don’t, I don’t blame you. That game was so bad that it has the honor of receiving the only “ Hate “ rating in Gamexplain. The game had several performances issues like freezing, a general lack of things outside the main game, questionable story, and reused animations when it did not make sense to reuse animations. Doesn’t that sound familiar? This was also Team B’s work for the record. Because of this game’s failure, I think that makes GF overprotective of their IP, since without Pokémon, the company is dead more or less.

 

[Bakugames]

The problem here is that pokemon exploded and got too big in such a short spam that not only could gamefreak not catch up to, they are not incentivizedto never do so.

This isnt a "who commands gamefreak/is tcp part of above gamefreak" debate, but more about the capitalistic pressure from shareholders to always increase profits with the less work possible and extreme marketing in other areas. There's no reason to expand the development time or getting new staff or training alread existing staff when your product makes 15 million and all the subsequent merch makes 1 billion. Youre spending more money without return, the only reason you would do it is if you care about the products quality and the workers, which omegalul.

Tl;dr capitalism bad and pokemon is a product of it.

 

[Siggu]

There are a few reasons to still stick to Pokémon: Simple gameplay (anyone can beat the story despite the way less than ideal explanation of in-game mechanics), and the extremely high party customization potential (even in Gen I, the odds of finding two different people running identical teams is very low). Of course, the characters themselves help a lot, with so many extremely endearing reptiles (birds included).

And in my case there's also the matter that Pokémon already has all the tools it needs to succeed (it doesn't need a change for its formula, and especially not go open world - last thing I want is another franchise I like to suffer from it, like Zelda). That Game Freak hasn't done a good job with it recently doesn't mean it's not good...

 

[Bakugames]

Anyone who says pokemon should change the gameplay formula (battles and overworld) is out of their mind. Literally one of the best foundations of the series and one of the few things still keeping it relevant, along with the character design of the pokemon and the catching mechanic.

Pokemon needs refining on battles and overworld, of course, but the main thing that needs to change is the lore, plot (including plot bosses such as e4/gyms/kahunas/totems) and character development. Plenty of games go with the exact same structure for decades and succeed because they bring extra features, refining and different plots.

As an example, the monster hunter stories 2 gameplay and assets are pretty much just ported from the 3ds game, including animations and abilities, moves, characters etc. But the game stands out because it refines so much and does it so well, the new characters are much more endearing, and then it added a couple new things to keep the game loop fresh.

Pokemon games live on two extremes, because most of it is stagnant, while new features are completely radical and get added and dropped all the time. There's no consistency, the base is good but it needed to be fixed and restructured, and the strain is starting to leave cracks.

 

[The Mind Electric]

Pokémon, as much as I sometimes whine about it, has had the foundation down since the beginning. There's something very deeply satisfying about catching your personal team of weaklings, training them up, developing unique battle strategies, and overcoming adversity. The framework is there, all the franchise needs is a game that puts everything together, and some games have gotten pretty close. I guess I'm holding out for that one game where everything comes together. Or maybe it's just childhood nostalgia. Probably both.

 

[DrumstickGaming]

I don't really know what draws me back to Pokemon. I find the lore of the universe compelling and interesting, but that's true of the other video game franchises I like. So that must be part of it, but it can't be all of it.

I suppose, in the first place, it's that it's consistent. The core gameplay elements are simple and good and quite hard to do badly. This is as much a boon to the weaker entries in the series as it is to the better ones. Even with how much SwSh dumped on the usual formula, they still couldn't mess it up too much. But on reflection this is true of so many other series - Mario, for instance - so it can't just be that.

In the second place it's the inherent customisation aspect. Even in Gen I, there are so many different Pokemon that you can craft a team that's all your own. Even if I have the same six Pokemon as someone else, there's no guarantee we'd play the same, use the same moves or items, etc. And that facilitates discussion, experimentation, collaboration. There is no perfect team. But we keep trying nonetheless.

In the third place, though, I think what it really is is the replayability value. I don't just mean playing the games over and over, I mean putting additional hours into a save file that's long been completed. Whether it's in battle facilities, trying to beat my own records in minigames, breeding and catching, or even glitching. There is always more to do. The sheer range of minigames and sidequests - Mantine Surf, Pokeathlon, Contests, Musicals, Movies (okay I never did the last two but my point still stands). Even things like collecting all the forms of Unown or Vivillon. Collectathons are fun (at least when they're varied enough to make it interesting, which Pokemon is) and this is key to Pokemon's success.

This ties into the last point though it's distinct. I'm as much a collector as I am a battler. I enjoy replaying Gen III's Battle Frontier as much as I enjoy breeding shinies in USUM. I've spent hours breeding Pokemon with rare egg moves, top-tier stats, or that were shiny, which I've never used (and might never) for no other reason than because it was cool to have them.

And lastly, Pokemon is a wonderful game because it gives immense scope for people to design their own challenges. The core gameplay might not be too challenging (this varies from game to game though) but the versatility and expansiveness of the game allows for all manner of self-imposed challenges - Nuzlockes, monotypes, and all the rest - as well as the standard challenges like Pokedex completion. (Fun fact, Ribbon Master is about the last big challenge in Pokemon I've never attempted, though I'm sure I will someday). Again, this goes hand in hand with the point about replayability. Already completed a title? Just play it again with self-imposed rules or limitations.

So while there are a lot of factors, I'd say the immense replayability value of Pokemon is what does it for me.

Haven't read every post in this thread yet but wanted to give a shout-out to this person, a lot of this mindset is why I find making tier lists so fun. I apologize if I overlap with other posters but want to contribute to the discussion.

What Pokemon does really well, as others have said, is a litany of options. I think pre-Gen V Pokemon usability in-game was pretty hit-or-miss for the most part, but I like how each new Pokemon in the modern games tends to have their own "secret art" or ways to challenge the classic archetypes or update types that didn't really work (want an example at how playability improved across the board for a type? Look no further than Gen V-onward Bug). Octolock, First Impression, No Retreat being a few examples, among others.

Pokemon, also like others have said, is that no two playthroughs are identical.

I don't play a lot of varied games (I don't like many RPGs tbh, I prefer linear games so Pokemon appeals to me) but what Pokemon has done really well since Gen V or so is alternatives to top tiers and making them usable. The classic example would be Golett, in that most people would drift toward Pokemon that don't almost kill off tier lists, come earlier, and have bigger pros in Sandile and Drilbur. But if you get past the fact Golett comes late in BW1, that actually works to its advantage - XY and SWSH go too far in the opposite direction and level 43 is a hike and a half to get to from the mid-10s. If you stop looking as Golett as "not as good", you can see what it does on its own merits, in that it's an actually decent Marshal check and has great STABS if it can move.

Another example would be Porygon-Z in DPPT (even though this is earlier than Gen V): a Pokemon that is functionally not a Normal type until level 51 Tri Attack, but performs about as good as Alakazam, Magmortar, Magnezone, and co, due to its unique coverage, some of the highest Special Attack in the game, and being on par with all but the speediest mons in those games at 90 Speed. Basically, it competes with other special sweepers effectively if you go Download. Again, once you stop seeing Porygon-Z as a "no-STAB" Pokemon, it does really well.

Other examples: Basculin to Simipour in BW1, any Flying type to Hawluchsa / Oricorio in USUM.