Forward
Lately I have become a bit infamous as a detractor of Nintendo's and Gamefreak's Pokemon series.This wouldn't have been too big a deal if I had expressed such negative opinions back when the series was at its peak of popularity in the 1990s, since hype-aversion will always be in fashion among some; nor afterward when that hype aversion won out for a time, as it usually does in a trend's lifestyle. Yet I didn't have a low opinion of the series at either of those points in time. If I was going to turn my back on that sort of thing out of a fragile sense of maturity/machismo, I'd have done so in High School, the time in many people's lives when such an attitude is most severe, but no; I held defiantly onto my Pokemon fandom then even as many of my peers moved on.
Ironically, it wasn't until I noticed Pokemon becoming really popular and publicized again that I started to sour on it, and the reason is perfectly clear to me: For all that I had been a loyal customer for over a decade, willing to stand by it and see where it went, it never went anywhere. Speaking as someone who has been with it since the very first games debuted in the USA, Pokemon is the most unapologetically repetitive, stale game series I have ever encountered. Every main game delivers the same scenario: You're a young boy (or possibly a girl, beginning in Generation 2) who lives in a tiny, mostly ill-equipped town that nonetheless also has a laboratory staffed by a professor, this professor gives you your first Pokemon that is (with the exception of some spinoffs) either Fire, Water or Grass type, you go on a quest to become the region champion, generally challenging gyms (although the last Generation swapped those out for Trials), until you're eligible to challenge the Elite 4, and along the way, a terrorist group whose name starts with "Team" attacks. Despite the new regions and new species added each generation, this degree of sameness was simply too much to keep me engrossed in the series, so I fell out with it. However, I'm not writing it off as permanently irreparable. What I am about to argue is that Pokemon can easily change up its experience, bringing myself and other former fans back in--without repelling anyone else from it in the process.
The Mario Mindset
Some will say that when a series is as successful as this one is even when it's stale, it doesn't need to make any changes. But lack of need aside, lots of other game series that are successful innovate more than this one, and while few have managed to be as successful as Pokemon, one of the few series that has managed to be more successful, Mario, provides a vastly more diverse set of experiences. Part of this diversity is naturally that the Mario series is divided into several different "pillars" (sub-series), so noteworthy as examples of how to cater to a wide range of demographics that it has been suggested other series should follow it. However, a look at those pillars individually reveals that even the core "Super Mario" series on its own outsells Pokemon...and that core series is extremely diverse in itself.
Beginning as a vague character in a variety of single-screen games, Mario found a winning formula in 1985 with the first Super Mario Bros. For any who don't know, the game featured Mario running and jumping, able to defeat enemies by jumping on top of them and trigger blocks by jumping to hit them from beneath, collecting coins and sometimes mushrooms to make him grow larger and stronger, or if he was already large, flowers that let him shoot fireballs. People loved it, and with one exception in the form of a non-Mario game rebranded as Super Mario Bros 2 in the US, that would be the base formula for Mario platformers up through 1992--but then things changed. Running and jumping remained staples of games titled "Super Mario ____", but otherwise Nintendo began going wild with new ideas. First came a prequel starring Yoshi, using his own unique abilities to help Mario as a baby reunite with his brother, and then their parents. Then came Mario's entry into 3D, Super Mario 64, which dramatically changed Mario's abilities, power-ups, and level-structure to fit that. The series continues to innovate to this day; occasionally revisiting elements from the old Super Mario Bros formula but straying back away just as quickly. Nintendo is always concerned with making Super Mario games good, but it doesn't seem concerned with making good Super Mario games. To do that would necessitate preconceptions of what exactly Super Mario games should be, and Nintendo doesn't care to have such preconceptions.
This lack of of orthodoxy has not hurt its profits. On the contrary, I'd say it's a big part of why Mario has outsold not only Pokemon, but every other video game series. It's not that everyone just likes Mario better; rather it's probably that Mario combines the comfort of assured high quality with the thrill of the unknown, and subsequently a collection of individually memorable experiences. I sometimes get in the mood to play a Mega Man game, and when I do maybe I will, but I don't get in the mood to play a specific Mega Man game. Likewise, when Capcom announces a new Mega Man game, maybe I'll buy it but maybe I won't, too. The formula of the games is too solidified to make them all worth a look in order to get my Mega Man fix. (Note: The Mega Man series also has pillars; though many enter periods of dormancy and some stay there, but unlike Mario, none of these pillars has as much variety within itself. For the sake of this essay, assume I'm talking about the Classic Mega Man series that started on the NES and has recently released its 11th main game.) The Super Mario series, though, throws in so many new elements and markets games around them that its entries can still draw me in even after I have played a past entry, and even if I feel that past entry is so perfect it can't be topped. I love Super Mario Bros 3 for its wide array of power-ups and environments, but it didn't take players into space and utilize virtual orbital gravity physics the way that Super Mario Galaxy did. I love Super Mario 3D World for its catsuit, co-op and nostalgic level design, but it didn't allow players to take control of a wide variety of entities the way Super Mario Odyssey did. That these games try different things makes players want to try them all out, while the fact that they star Mario ensures they'll get the publicity needed to make players aware those different things exist.
That is The Mario Mindset. While reaching the top means you can settle into a routine, it doesn't mean you should. Even when you can't seem to go any higher, you can still go sideways. The people in charge of Mario have the money to afford that investment and the loyal fanbase to help them earn it back. We're getting towards an argument of how such an approach can be applied to Pokemon. First, though, we should look at where.
Where and What Can Wiggle and Wander?
Before getting into how the Pokemon series should follow Mario's example, I want to address a possible objection to it doing so. The first objection would probably be that not every game series can be like Mario, which has an ability to explore diverse ideas that other game series don't, since its character has such a vague design, not indicative of any particular function. This isn't as relevant as one might think, though.
Kirby has arguably an even more vague design; in its default state representative of almost nothing besides a character of some sort. Such a character could theoretically be used to deliver all different sorts of game scenarios, but while there do exist Kirby spin-offs, they haven't become "pillars" and the main series always consists of side-scrolling platformers involving Kirby flying, inhaling enemies, and possibly swallowing them to copy their powers. Mario is at least a bit more defined than that; with overalls and a rotund profile that give the impression of being a blue-collar worker, but it hasn't stopped his game developers from thinking outside the box.
Having said that, it can't be denied that Pokemon games have a broader "core" than Mario games, which arguably is more important to retain. Mario's core mechanics of running and jumping were established in a time when limited technology couldn't allow many more per-game. Being created over a decade later, Pokemon was able to have more gameplay mechanics in its first game(s) than Mario had, and being a success, these became its core. It's a turn-based role-playing game that utilizes an expanded "rock, paper scissors" system of type weaknesses and advantages assigned to Pokemon and their attacks. The Pokemon fight using these mechanics. Other things happen in the series, but the RPG battles are the core around which they orbit.
However, being anchored to these core mechanics doesn't mean that Pokemon can't innovate elsewhere. Let's go back to the Mario series for this explanation, because it's not just its gameplay that changes from game to game. Also, varying from game to game are the plots and settings, and this is true even in the pillars of the Mario series that tend to be less diverse than the "Super Mario" branch.
Take the "Mario & Luigi" set of roleplaying games, for example. The first is about a witch cursing the princess, prompting the plumbers to travel to her land of sentient beings to stop that witch. In the second game, aliens invade, and to stop them Mario and Luigi must travel back in time to team up with their baby selves. These plots aren't just amusingly weird in themselves; even if you've experienced one the next will still feel that way, since they're so different...and different is good.
Likewise the Mario series' approach to settings is so different from Pokemon's as to warrant a mention. Pokemon introduces a new region every generation, and they're overall distinct from one another, but the towns players start in largely rememble each other; a few houses, a laboratory, and not much else. For those of us who have played Pokemon games before, this is a dull repetitive hump to get over, and even for newcomers, it's a less interesting and almost mis-representative take on the adventure that comes after. By contrast, many (though not all) Mario games take place in the Mushroom Kingdom, but the starting levels always have diverse designs. Though forgiving of failure, the first levels of Mario games give people the ability to explore more (though not all) of the game's mechanics. Even the surroundings of Princess Peach's castle, a common location in the series, change from game to game; they might be sparse one game, have a race course adjacent in another, a town adjacent in still another, or maybe even a race course and a town. That sort of change might be a problem if the games prioritized world-building, but they don't, which in turn brings us to a very important point.
As has been established, things in game series can be divided between "core mechanics"; those which are important to the series' identity, and essentially everything else. The latter category of things is less important by default, of course, but here's a neat secret: Precisely because of their lesser importance, the games have more leeway to experiment with them! Let's say this new Mario game's plot about teaming up with a gang of naked molerats that have elemental powers arguably isn't as good as last game's plot about Mario battling an evil ringmaster who has a toaster for a face--oh well; plot isn't really important to Mario games. But let's say it's better! Then the game has succeeded at creating something memorable! It didn't have to try, but it did, and it didn't have to succeed, but it also did. Every once in a while, moreover, something Mario games didn't have to try, like the character Fawful, succeed so well that it goes on to be reused.
The Mario series seems to look at everything that isn't essential to it and conclude it can get away with doing almost anything with it. (Though not quite; more on this next section.) It creates all manner of wonderful things by doing so. The Pokemon series seems to look at everything that isn't essential to it and conclude it can get away with doing almost nothing with it. It thus continues to display gameplay mechanics that stand the test of time and new species of Pokemon, but little else of value to retain and expand upon come next game. However, while I'm certainly not saying Pokemon should transform into Mario, I am adamant that at least on its periphery, Pokemon could benefit from adapting its mindset, because a rare time it has already done so has given it perhaps its biggest crown jewel: Pikachu.
Think about it: Pikcahu is absolutely inessential to the core Pokemon mechanics. It's one species out of originally 150, it can potentially evolve into another species, and its Electric type isn't the most convenient to teach the effectiveness mechanics to newcomers; hence why it wasn't originally one of the starters in the games. You would need to capture it to complete the Pokedex, but you could easily play through all of the game without ever using it in battle. If Pikachu wasn't in the game, the game would be almost identical. So the creators Pokemon certainly didn't need to play up Pikachu as its mascot, but back then, for once, they understood what should be obvious: Just because you do not need to do a thing doesn't mean that you need to not do that thing. By doing that thing they did not need to do, in turn, they created a phenomenon within the phenomenon.
Because Pikachu has become an icon unto itself, attaching it to things can get fans to follow. If you want a noteworthy event in a game, it can be about Pikachu in some way. If you want to do a game based on the anime, Pikachu can play a bigger role as one of the key mechanics. It can help sell spinoff games , and allow the creators to try out uncharacteristically zany ideas. Most recently, it was even used to make a detective spinoff game, playing on how Pikachu doesn't usually solve mysteries, and this game has inspired an upcoming live-action/CGI movie. It's coming out this May, and is the first Pokemon product I've been excited for in years. So if thinking outside the box has already led to one big success for Pokemon, how can it do more of that?
1) As noted above, it shouldn't compromise its core gameplay mechanics, which are turn-based RPG battles using a rock-paper-scissors sort of effectiveness system, many different possible moves to learn, and a few more subtle systems. Remember that this refers to the main series of RPGs; spin-offs can deviate further.
2) It shouldn't do things that would alienate its current audience, which largely consists of children. Ideas that bring in other audiences would be great, but only in addition to the existing audience; not instead.
So the following would fall under "Need to not do":
* Real-time battles.
*Battles that don't use type-effectiveness.
*A scene of Pokemon engaging in lewd acts.
Meanwhile, he following would fall under "Do not need to do":
*A new move called "Taxation"
*A new Pokemon type called "Mechanical"
*A scene of Pokemon dancing jigs.
Those are humorously random suggestions of "safe" ideas that wouldn't pose any threat to what they need to maintain, but won't necessarily bring new success, either. Meanwhile, here are safe ideas that I would argue the series actually should do:
*A different start to the story than a professor giving the protagonists their first Pokemon again. This is a safe idea because professors are actually a pretty small part of Pokemon games; generally not interacting with the player much after that scene. There would need to be some sort of replacement to explain mechanics, provide a PokeDex to players, and whatever new excuse is for getting a Pokemon should still allow for a choice between multiple. However, requesting that the writers do something different could give them an incentive to come up with something better. Maybe fun supporting characters throughout the story, maybe more possible starter Pokemon; who knows?! If it ends up worse than the same old scenario of getting a Pokemon from a professor, then as explained above, oh well; these plot elements aren't super-important to the game.
*Villains whose name doesn't start with "Team". I shouldn't have to explain why this is a totally safe idea. It may seem trivial either way, but once again, breaking that mold gives a chance to be more creative; employing more words and literary devices to form interesting titles like "The Brotherhood of Bullheaded Battlers". Of course many other things could be done besides that, but it's a good lead to next point.
*Be funnier. So long as the bit about staying child-friendly is heeded, this is a safe idea, and an excellent source of inspiration for comedy could be the aforementioned Mario RPGs. While some types of comedy, such as slapstick, could be difficult to convey in a game with such abstract graphics, verbal humor utilizing a script could do very well, as there is generally a fair amount of text already in the games.
*A different focus to the game than just becoming the region's champion. This is a safe idea because there are already other things going on in the games. There's the aforementioned villainous team, there are legendary Pokemon to catch, there's often a pivotal battle to save the region. Making a new Pokemon game's plot center around something that is more interesting than just another tournament--which ultimately, can really only end one way--would be a good way to lure back in those of us who aren't as compelled by tournaments. Pokemon Black/White already took some steps toward this by having the villains invade the Pokemon League, so in many regards it doesn't matter whether the people you're battling at the end of the story mode are League members or not.
*Mostly a removal of lock-and-key map progression. That is, don't limit progress through the region based on gaining access to needed Pokemon abilities unlocked at specific points in the story. While this had a point in maintaining the order of plot points in past Pokemon games, technological advancement has allowed such a sequence to tied to events instead. A common recommendation of what to do instead is impede people's progress through some places with wild Pokemon who have higher levels. While it might seem like a major shift, I would argue it's a shift that's still in line with Pokemon's core mechanic; the battles. Since the whole quest is ultimately an excuse to meet, battle, catch and train Pokemon, and "HM slavery" has many detractors even among big Pokemon fans, I'd argue that this would just put a greater emphasis on the series' better elements. Making the toughest battles the player faces be against wild Pokemon rather than trained ones also might help the game feel more like an adventure.
They don't need to try all of those to make the main series feel fresh again, and they could even try some different things entirely, but above all else, the point is to add something new to a Pokemon game, peripheral to the battles, besides the usual new creatures and region. Make a Pokemon game that truly feels new to those of us who have already played many Pokemon games!
Take the "Mario & Luigi" set of roleplaying games, for example. The first is about a witch cursing the princess, prompting the plumbers to travel to her land of sentient beings to stop that witch. In the second game, aliens invade, and to stop them Mario and Luigi must travel back in time to team up with their baby selves. These plots aren't just amusingly weird in themselves; even if you've experienced one the next will still feel that way, since they're so different...and different is good.
Likewise the Mario series' approach to settings is so different from Pokemon's as to warrant a mention. Pokemon introduces a new region every generation, and they're overall distinct from one another, but the towns players start in largely rememble each other; a few houses, a laboratory, and not much else. For those of us who have played Pokemon games before, this is a dull repetitive hump to get over, and even for newcomers, it's a less interesting and almost mis-representative take on the adventure that comes after. By contrast, many (though not all) Mario games take place in the Mushroom Kingdom, but the starting levels always have diverse designs. Though forgiving of failure, the first levels of Mario games give people the ability to explore more (though not all) of the game's mechanics. Even the surroundings of Princess Peach's castle, a common location in the series, change from game to game; they might be sparse one game, have a race course adjacent in another, a town adjacent in still another, or maybe even a race course and a town. That sort of change might be a problem if the games prioritized world-building, but they don't, which in turn brings us to a very important point.
As has been established, things in game series can be divided between "core mechanics"; those which are important to the series' identity, and essentially everything else. The latter category of things is less important by default, of course, but here's a neat secret: Precisely because of their lesser importance, the games have more leeway to experiment with them! Let's say this new Mario game's plot about teaming up with a gang of naked molerats that have elemental powers arguably isn't as good as last game's plot about Mario battling an evil ringmaster who has a toaster for a face--oh well; plot isn't really important to Mario games. But let's say it's better! Then the game has succeeded at creating something memorable! It didn't have to try, but it did, and it didn't have to succeed, but it also did. Every once in a while, moreover, something Mario games didn't have to try, like the character Fawful, succeed so well that it goes on to be reused.
The Mario series seems to look at everything that isn't essential to it and conclude it can get away with doing almost anything with it. (Though not quite; more on this next section.) It creates all manner of wonderful things by doing so. The Pokemon series seems to look at everything that isn't essential to it and conclude it can get away with doing almost nothing with it. It thus continues to display gameplay mechanics that stand the test of time and new species of Pokemon, but little else of value to retain and expand upon come next game. However, while I'm certainly not saying Pokemon should transform into Mario, I am adamant that at least on its periphery, Pokemon could benefit from adapting its mindset, because a rare time it has already done so has given it perhaps its biggest crown jewel: Pikachu.
 |
| It was fatter back then. |
Think about it: Pikcahu is absolutely inessential to the core Pokemon mechanics. It's one species out of originally 150, it can potentially evolve into another species, and its Electric type isn't the most convenient to teach the effectiveness mechanics to newcomers; hence why it wasn't originally one of the starters in the games. You would need to capture it to complete the Pokedex, but you could easily play through all of the game without ever using it in battle. If Pikachu wasn't in the game, the game would be almost identical. So the creators Pokemon certainly didn't need to play up Pikachu as its mascot, but back then, for once, they understood what should be obvious: Just because you do not need to do a thing doesn't mean that you need to not do that thing. By doing that thing they did not need to do, in turn, they created a phenomenon within the phenomenon.
 |
| Seriously; would this exist if the series was only about turn-based Rock-Paper-Scissors RPG battles? |
Because Pikachu has become an icon unto itself, attaching it to things can get fans to follow. If you want a noteworthy event in a game, it can be about Pikachu in some way. If you want to do a game based on the anime, Pikachu can play a bigger role as one of the key mechanics. It can help sell spinoff games , and allow the creators to try out uncharacteristically zany ideas. Most recently, it was even used to make a detective spinoff game, playing on how Pikachu doesn't usually solve mysteries, and this game has inspired an upcoming live-action/CGI movie. It's coming out this May, and is the first Pokemon product I've been excited for in years. So if thinking outside the box has already led to one big success for Pokemon, how can it do more of that?
Pokemon's Potential for Progress
Bringing more innovation to Pokemon should start with the main series of RPGs, so among proposed innovations, how ought the series to dinstinguish between "Things it does not need to do" and "Things it needs to not do"? The best way would be to determine if it's "safe"; via two principles:1) As noted above, it shouldn't compromise its core gameplay mechanics, which are turn-based RPG battles using a rock-paper-scissors sort of effectiveness system, many different possible moves to learn, and a few more subtle systems. Remember that this refers to the main series of RPGs; spin-offs can deviate further.
2) It shouldn't do things that would alienate its current audience, which largely consists of children. Ideas that bring in other audiences would be great, but only in addition to the existing audience; not instead.
So the following would fall under "Need to not do":
* Real-time battles.
*Battles that don't use type-effectiveness.
*A scene of Pokemon engaging in lewd acts.
Meanwhile, he following would fall under "Do not need to do":
*A new move called "Taxation"
*A new Pokemon type called "Mechanical"
*A scene of Pokemon dancing jigs.
Those are humorously random suggestions of "safe" ideas that wouldn't pose any threat to what they need to maintain, but won't necessarily bring new success, either. Meanwhile, here are safe ideas that I would argue the series actually should do:
*A different start to the story than a professor giving the protagonists their first Pokemon again. This is a safe idea because professors are actually a pretty small part of Pokemon games; generally not interacting with the player much after that scene. There would need to be some sort of replacement to explain mechanics, provide a PokeDex to players, and whatever new excuse is for getting a Pokemon should still allow for a choice between multiple. However, requesting that the writers do something different could give them an incentive to come up with something better. Maybe fun supporting characters throughout the story, maybe more possible starter Pokemon; who knows?! If it ends up worse than the same old scenario of getting a Pokemon from a professor, then as explained above, oh well; these plot elements aren't super-important to the game.
*Villains whose name doesn't start with "Team". I shouldn't have to explain why this is a totally safe idea. It may seem trivial either way, but once again, breaking that mold gives a chance to be more creative; employing more words and literary devices to form interesting titles like "The Brotherhood of Bullheaded Battlers". Of course many other things could be done besides that, but it's a good lead to next point.
*Be funnier. So long as the bit about staying child-friendly is heeded, this is a safe idea, and an excellent source of inspiration for comedy could be the aforementioned Mario RPGs. While some types of comedy, such as slapstick, could be difficult to convey in a game with such abstract graphics, verbal humor utilizing a script could do very well, as there is generally a fair amount of text already in the games.
*A different focus to the game than just becoming the region's champion. This is a safe idea because there are already other things going on in the games. There's the aforementioned villainous team, there are legendary Pokemon to catch, there's often a pivotal battle to save the region. Making a new Pokemon game's plot center around something that is more interesting than just another tournament--which ultimately, can really only end one way--would be a good way to lure back in those of us who aren't as compelled by tournaments. Pokemon Black/White already took some steps toward this by having the villains invade the Pokemon League, so in many regards it doesn't matter whether the people you're battling at the end of the story mode are League members or not.
*Mostly a removal of lock-and-key map progression. That is, don't limit progress through the region based on gaining access to needed Pokemon abilities unlocked at specific points in the story. While this had a point in maintaining the order of plot points in past Pokemon games, technological advancement has allowed such a sequence to tied to events instead. A common recommendation of what to do instead is impede people's progress through some places with wild Pokemon who have higher levels. While it might seem like a major shift, I would argue it's a shift that's still in line with Pokemon's core mechanic; the battles. Since the whole quest is ultimately an excuse to meet, battle, catch and train Pokemon, and "HM slavery" has many detractors even among big Pokemon fans, I'd argue that this would just put a greater emphasis on the series' better elements. Making the toughest battles the player faces be against wild Pokemon rather than trained ones also might help the game feel more like an adventure.
They don't need to try all of those to make the main series feel fresh again, and they could even try some different things entirely, but above all else, the point is to add something new to a Pokemon game, peripheral to the battles, besides the usual new creatures and region. Make a Pokemon game that truly feels new to those of us who have already played many Pokemon games!
No comments:
Post a Comment