Seriously though, what is WITH Pokemon? It seems like anyone who grew up with a Nintendo handheld loves Pokemon, and I've been left out. In reality, I've tried Pokemon games more than once and never got into it. In fact, it represents almost everything I hate in RPGs, and I can't stand the series.
I'm not trying to say that the millions of people who like Pokemon are wrong, but I just don't see the appeal and I find a lot of things in the series that get in the way of any enjoyment I could find from the games.
So let's get into it.
Pokemon is almost entirely luck-based.
I don't know about most people, but when I play games I like to be in control of what's going on. It's why I love games like Yoshi's Island and Super Mario Land 2. Everything you do is directly done by you. Use the D-Pad to move. Press "A" to jump. And I'm not talking just platformers here. Games like DOOM, Team Fortress 2, Pac-Mania... What do they have in common? Good control.
RPGs always have bugged me in this regard. If you want to defeat an enemy, you don't actually do anything but tell the characters what to do. Whether those attacks connect or not or how much damage they do isn't dependent on the players actions. The Mario RPGs got it right by forcing the player to actually press buttons to execute attacks and defend. As a result players had direct control of what was going on. Most RPGs don't have that.
And you might be thinking that I really must hate a lot of games if I can my stand that mechanic, and for the most part, you'd be right. I can't play Final Fantasy games because of it, and even charming games like EarthBound are less fun to me because of it. Persona 3 is a fantastic game and I find the battling mechanic to be its only flaw. That's right, Persona 3 would be perfect if it had battling mechanics like the Mario RPGs. Can you believe it?
But Pokemon does it the worst, because the game's goal is solely to battle and catch Pokemon! At least other RPGs have something else to it, but when the entire game is based on crappy RPG battles with no control given to the player, then you bet I'm gonna be turned off quickly.
My friend and I debate about this all the time. He explains all of the strategic elements to the game and how everything isn't completely random, and my argument is always the same. The player's job in battles is to increase their chances. You choose attacks that make your chance of winning the battle greater. But you never actually fight the battle. You can say that using a water attack on a fire-type Pokemon will increase your chances, but if you choose that attack and it misses, then you're screwed and there's nothing you can do. It's the same thing with catching Pokemon. If you throw a Pokeball to catch a Pokemon, there's a chance you won't catch it. Imagine if, in a Mario game, there was a 9/10 chance of you getting bigger if you got a Super Mushroom. Or in a Kirby game, imagine if there was a 14/17 chance of getting the same ability as your enemy when you inhale him. Sound fair? Sound fun? I personally would say that it isn't.
The evolution system is more complicated than it needs to be.
I don't understand anything about Pokemon when it comes to evolution. Evolutions are important because weaker Pokemon can evolve into stronger species. If you want any hope at succeeding, you'll need to evolve some of your Pokemon.
So if the process is so important, why does it have to be so complicated? Whenever I look up something about evolutions, it seems like it's different for every Pokemon. And with hundreds of different Pokemon, that's a lot to keep track of. How do I know which Pokemon can evolve and which can't? How do I know whether the evolution's good or not? The answer? I don't, until I either figure it out on my own or do the research online.
One of the most important things a game has to do is teach the player about the mechanics of the game. Mega Man X did this through an intro stage. Yoshi's Island did it through an intro stage and hint blocks. But for these games, it was easy. There wasn't much to them. So how do you teach a player how to evolve Pokemon? Simple - you streamline the system, and no game streamlined an overcomplicated system than Terraria.
Minecraft's major flaw is it's crafting system. You have to arrange items in very specific ways on a 3x3 grid, similar to how evolving Pokemon is so specific. What did Terraria do? Easily tell you what you could make with the tools you had. You just can walk up to a workbench and press "Pause" and you instantly got to see everything you could craft. Or you could give the Guide an item and he could tell you everything you could craft that has that item in it and what other ingredients you need.
So if you have to make the evolution require specific instructions, then how about the game tell me what to do? Why can't I go to some character in the game, select a Pokemon, and have him/her tell me exactly what I need to evolve it? And if this is in the game, then why didn't I know about it or why couldn't I find it in Emerald? In Terraria, the character you needed to see appeared right next to you at the start of a new game.
Especially with so many Pokemon and so many different evolutions, an easy way to learn the system is imperative and Pokemon lacks that.
Pokemon has a stupid plot.
Oh, man, I just went there. I just insulted the most iconic catchphrase in all video gaming.
"Gotta catch 'em all?" Why? What's the point?
Well actually I know what the point is. Every character in Pokemon obsesses over how fun it is to catch Pokemon, fight with Pokemon, and make your Pokemon stronger. The game's point is to have fun and nothing else, for the most part. But, to me, how much fun is it to run around a world of one-dimensional characters with a gang of derpy-looking creatures that you have little control over, aiming to initiate fights where you pray the game will have mercy and let you win? What fun is it to waste hours fighting the same Pokemon over and over again just so your Squirtle can reach level 30? What fun is it to watch a red-and-white ball wiggle over and over, praying to the Pokemon gods that it won't explode so that you can catch that Pokemon that you only have a 1 in 8192 chance of seeing in battle but really has little difference from other Pokemon except for a few sparkles? It's not fun.
Pokemon games actually do have a basic plotline, however, but they serve no purpose but to give some variety in new games other than the technical details. All of the Pokemon villains are the same. They have some idiotic scheme, call you stupid a few times, and claim that they're better than you. That's enough to encourage any kid to waste their time, but not me. I'll turn the other cheek... and then turn it back so I can put Yoshi's Island in the cartridge slot.
***
Look, it's fine if you like Pokemon. I don't care. You're entitled to your opinion. My take is that I have no interest in wasting my time learning all of the Pokemon, all the stats, all the evolutions, and all of the typology complications just to play a game I have little control over. There's just simply no value in it for me.
Thanks for reading, and remember that I will be catching them all. Ha, you thought I was talking about Pokemon? Nah, I was talking about the catch cards in Super Paper Mario. It's tedious, yes, but at least there I have control.
-MML
Hey MML, it's Ultra. I read the entire thing, and I can understand what you mean. Though I AM a fan of Pokemon, it's not the best series in the world (Mother / Earthbound series is in my opinion). Well written!
ReplyDeleteHave a good day, Ultra!