Single-player versus multiplayer

[noobcubed]

Yay, a noobcubed vanity thread! Haven't had one of those for a while :)

So my younger brother, who is probably more of a Pokemon nut than I am, firmly believes that Pokemon X and Y are the weakest games of the series. He has the following main complaints:

a) (Most obviously) the game offers no challenge, mainly due to the new EXP share but a shallow level curve and insanely powerful mega-evolutions help too. As my brother said, "the battle music is awesome; too bad that even the Elite Four fights are over too quickly to appreciate the whole tune".

b) (A more subtle complaint) by the time you have been given a Kalos starter, a Kanto starter and a free Lucario, all with their mega stones thrown in, that's half your team right there. You could avoid using them, but realistically that won't happen as long as the game gives them to you for free. Therefore the possible team selections are massively stripped down and the game lacks replay value as a result.

Now, on one level, these are significant flaws, but only if you view Pokemon as primarily a single-player game. If you view it as a multiplayer experience, however, then they make perfect sense - rush people through the campaign mode as quickly as possible and let them unlock everything they have to in order to start building competitive teams, so they can get on with the actual business. Other features seem to underline this multiplayer focus: a bottom screen filled with the avatar of other, real players, and a sudden attention towards metagame balance (although in my eyes mega-evolutions have done more harm than good in that respect; anyway, that's for another thread). Meanwhile, who cares that the game lacks replay value? You're not going to start over because you'd have to trawl through twenty hours of story mode before you could compete properly online again.

Let's not forget that GameFreak has a very good incentive to promote online multiplayer - the network effect (the idea that a product is more valuable to each individual person, the more people own that product - a phone is a good example). Even as a Pokemon fan I can accept that the series isn't innovating fast. Every Pokemon game is based on the same, turn-based gameplay principles and it's never going to change; the primary selling-point for new Pokemon games are the new Pokemon species, and there weren't even that many of those in X and Y. But once you inextricably tie the games to online multiplayer, then as soon as the new game comes out people who had been playing online have to get the new one because that's where the other players will be. There are several sports games series (you know the cuplrits) which get away with merely selling a $60 player roster each year and yet people who bought the last one will invariably get the next, to avoid being left behind by the playerbase. If GameFreak wants to future-proof a franchise that may be going a little stale, then emphasising online play is the safest way to do that.

So, do you want this trend to continue? Do you generally prefer the single- or multiplayer aspects of the franchise? Or do you think it's the combination of both that makes the series great?

 

[Xen]

Eh, I personally think a nice blend of single and multiplayer is what makes the series so great. Online battling and trading is great, but the single player achievements such as beating the Pokemon league, getting high win streaks in the battle tower/frontier/maison, and completing the Pokedex also make for memorable experiences. Heck, as far as the Pokedex is concerned, you're playing single and multiplayer at once since you'll have to trade Pokemon and use the friend safaris if you want to to complete it.

And let's be honest, who plays a Pokemon game through the main narrative and expects it to be challenging unless you're playing under a certain ruleset such as a nuzlocke? The only Pokemon game I've ever played that was somewhat challenging was Pokemon Colosseum.

 

[Lady Vader]

Normally, I enjoy single-player more than multiplayer. This is mainly cause I've mostly played on my own. My sister isn't a big video game person and I've had a friend come over to my house, so I'm just used to video games being a single player experience. But the reason I got back into Pokémon was because of multiplayer. That's why I play it: to have battles with my friends. Not to undervalue the single player experience (my playthrough of Black was a great, if short, experience), but I just prefer multiplayer.
Now, I hate when people act that it has to be one or the other. I had an acquaintance say that he only plays single player "like you're meant to." I promptly told him off on that cause that is a very narrow view. Now, if you don't like going against other people and just enjoy playing through the region, that is perfectly fine. Just don't knock the other side. Same vice-versa.
[hops off soapbox]

 

[Karxrida]

The Multiplayer experience is the meat of Pokemon games, but having a enjoyable Singleplayer game is a huge aspect. Completing the Singleplayer mode is pretty much required to gain access to everything you need for Multiplayer, so having a good Singleplayer experience is just as important to not make the game feel like a massive grind*.

I agree with your brother that X and Y were very weak, but for different reasons. Almost every pair of games has at least one Mon that breaks the game in half (Abra for RBY, starters not named Chikorita in GSC and remakes, Starly in DPPt, the entire desert/Archen in BW, Magnemite/Riolu/Dream Radar Legends in BW2) so XY aren't really that much different in that aspect, but the story is a huge step down from BW's surprisingly well-written narrative and better characterized rivals.

There's also the personal gripe of mine that BW(2)'s animated sprites are much more lively than XY's very static 3D ones.

*Yes I know it is a massive grind regardless, but an enjoyable grind is better than bland one.

 

[rufus drumknott]

The thing I always liked most about Pokemon is that you can play it in lots of ways so lots of different people can enjoy it. I used to be a solely single player. After I finished the main storyline, I'd drop the game and wait until the next one. Now I'm definitely more of the multiplayer sort and people think I'm a nut for bringing my 3DS everywhere with me. But I don't think GF can afford to make one or the other stronger. XY was definitely weak in storyline and if ORAS doesn't pick up in that respect (yes, I know it almost very definitely will) then they risk losing a great deal of their fanbase.

Besides, it's the single-player aspect that you get to first. If that isn't interesting, how does GF expect us to toil through it to enjoy multiplayer to the fullest?

 

[Kurona]

I always viewed XY as trying to improve the multiplayer experience more than anything. And in that aspect... well, it's hard to see how they could have done it better. Breeding was made so much easier and less tedious it's not even funny, the pace of battles is fast enough, the 3D models and move animations are solid, Mega Evolution really spices things up and changes just about any metagame, the Fairy type and steel's nerfs arguably balanced things and made every type usable - apart from Bug, god - and in general it's easy to see why so many more people are getting into competitive than there were in, say, 4th gen.

And then the single player really feels like afterthought. And it's a shame, because there is a lot of promise - the Mega Evolution lore does seem interesting yet incomplete, Az and Lysandre seem fantastic characters but just are not given enough chance to expand or shine, just about everyone agrees Diantha is the worst champion ever (well, either her or Wallace), and in general it just feels like they were going for a great single player halfway through but then thought "fuck it, multiplayer's more important, just get bob or something to work on the aftergame".
Incidentally, thank you for the wonderful Looker story, Bob.
Regardless, that lovely little aftergame story aside, it really feels like the single-player had good potential but just ended up being rushed in the end.

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

I always found it difficult to pinpint what exactly I enjoy about the single player experience of Pokemon games. It certainly is not the story, which was barely there in the first two generations, and (at least for me) got too full of cliché anime power of friendship in the later games to enjoy. I also very much dislike the convention of having an evil team in every game. To me, this always fealt unnatural after Team Rocket, expecially since no team other than them had any believable goal.

The games themselves were always quite easy, which is why I don't mind the new EXP Share mechanics at all. If anything, they made things more enjoyable to me, since in XY I was able to actually use all of my team the whole game without effort. It is my opinion that no game with a level system like that of Pokemon is ever going to be truly challenging, since most level based challenge can just be solved by being higher level than the opponent. This does not take any skill, only effort.

Since I am already on the topic of defending design decisions present in XY: I disagree that a lot of your team is determined for you from the start. You do get a number of Pokemon as a gift, but nothing is forcing you to use them. I certainly didn't use Lucario on my first playthrough, and got rid of my starter about halfway through. If anything, XY allows you to have a more diverse team than the previous games, because of the sheer number of available Pokemon (450 or however much there are even before the Elite 4). Also, if this was an actual problem, I feel it would have been most pronounced in Yellow, where you got gifted all the starters and Pikachu.

Anyway, back to the single player aspect of the games: Since neither the story nor the challenge of the game held my interest, I am forced to assume that the gameplay itself is what I like. And it's true, I don't know of any other game that has a battle system that I enjoy as much as Pokemon, with the team building as well as the actual battles being very enjoyable. If only the games utilized its strengths better and featured more trainer battles with full teams.

Strangely though, while I enjoy the battling more than the other aspects of the game, I am not very big into online battles. I prefer playing with people I know, which is limiting to say the least. What this means is that I play the singe player of the games a lot more than the multiplayer, even though that is the part that I should actually be wanting to play. This, to me, makes Pokemon a very special case in gaming, since I honestly can't say what part of the game is more important to me.

What I can say, though, is that I generally think the new design decisions of XY were quite good, since they remove a lot of artificial difficulty. Now, if only actual difficulty was introduced instead, that would definitely be great. But then again, I have not illusions that Pokemon is designed to be anything else other than baby's first RPG, so I am not holding my breath on that.

 

[Kurona]

Now, if only actual difficulty was introduced instead, that would definitely be great. But then again, I have not illusions that Pokemon is designed to be anything else other than baby's first RPG, so I am not holding my breath on that.

You may be interested in checking out Pokémon Colosseum and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness for the Gamecube, which greatly limit your catchable Pokémon and level grinding. I've heard from many people that they present a very good challenge, especially for those like yourself that like the formula but don't like how easy it is.

 

[noobcubed]

Just to say for myself: I get it that the single-player Pokemon experience is meant to be easy. (In fact I have mentioned before here that what makes Pokemon so great is that, if you want it to be accessible, it is, and if you're looking for depth, you can find that too, and all without resorting to the somewhat artificial mechanic of scalable difficulty.) Challenge is not the core gameplay aesthetic of main-story Pokemon; rather it is self-expression, the ability to make choices (ie what Pokemon you use, what moves they learn, etc).

However, in my eyes the choices you make in Pokemon are not very meaningful because they do not really affect how easy you make the game for yourself, unless you make clearly silly choices. Picking the mage or the warrior at he beginning of many classic RPGs is a lot more meaningful than picking Bulbasaur, Charmander or Squirtle. Indeed, nuzlocking is a thing precisely because some people want to make the games more challenging and you need to invent silly rules to do that.

I've never actually done a nuzlocke though... might have to wait on that one.

You may be interested in checking out Pokémon Colosseum and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness for the Gamecube, which greatly limit your catchable Pokémon and level grinding. I've heard from many people that they present a very good challenge, especially for those like yourself that like the formula but don't like how easy it is.

Actually I downloaded Pokemon Trading Card Game from the eShop not too long ago. That game makes you think a bit more than the main series does, both in terms of building a deck and then in the actual battles. Anyone here play the TCG online? I might look into it if I'm bored one weekend...

 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

You may be interested in checking out Pokémon Colosseum and Pokémon XD: Gale of Darkness for the Gamecube, which greatly limit your catchable Pokémon and level grinding. I've heard from many people that they present a very good challenge, especially for those like yourself that like the formula but don't like how easy it is.

I am aware of the games, and was even briefly thinking about them as I was writing. I actually owned Colloseum at the time it was released, but never finished it. I remember not liking it much at the time, which is why I did not mention it at first, but suspect that I would like it now.

On the other hand: Generation III battle mechanics...

Just to say for myself: I get it that the single-player Pokemon experience is meant to be easy. (In fact I have mentioned before here that what makes Pokemon so great is that, if you want it to be accessible, it is, and if you're looking for depth, you can find that too, and all without resorting to the somewhat artificial mechanic of scalable difficulty.) Challenge is not the core gameplay aesthetic of main-story Pokemon; rather it is self-expression, the ability to make choices (ie what Pokemon you use, what moves they learn, etc).

I find that to be a great strength of the games, too, which is why I do not understand the complaints about how EXP Share makes things too easy. When I played through XY, I enjoyed how I didn't have to go out of my way to bring newly caught or weaker Pokemon up to speed with the rest of my team. But since I also thought the game was a bit easy, I changed the battle style to be unable to switch out after fainting an opposing Pokemon and limited my item use during battle. For me, treating trainer battles as if they were link battles made the game challenging enough to be fun.

 

[PumpedAaron]

Well, as someone who's played Pokemon here and there ever sine 1st gen, I guess I can say that I mostly engaged in the single-player experience as a kid, as link cable battles and such were had to arrange in school. Near the end of 3rd gen, however, I finally learned about EV's IVs, egg moves, and all that competitive stuff, and started playing competitively on Netbattle and whatnot. I even worked at building a team to supposedly take on the Battle Frontier completely, but I was still wet behind the ears back then!!

4th gen was beautiful for me. I built a team I found aesthetically pleasing as well as competitive, and I won a good share of battles! It was nice.


I haven't touched 6th gen yet, but I can honestly appreciate all the effort it went into making the multiplayer experience very accessible, with all the new breeding mechanics and tools to expidate IV-searching and EV-training!!

SO, which experience is better or worse: Single-play or multi-play?

Well, in the early stages, the Single-play actually has you make some interesting choices and deal with stimulating challenges. Catching certain Pokemon require you to be specifically prepared for them, too! (You can't False Swipe Ghost types immediately, you can't put Primeape to sleep!)

I think the only big serious -CHORE- in Pokemon games is simply leveling up during the postgame. At this point, its probably not at all a difficult thing to do, but it creates the -illusion- of difficulty, because it takes up your time.


And with my life getting busy, that's my main dilemma in deciding to play Pokemon. 6th gen thankfully is doing a lot to try and tell me that I can afford to play it, at least time-wise.