Sustainability of the Pokémon model

[Codraroll]

I want to discuss a topic that has been nagging me for a little while: "How long can we be going like this?"

Assuming Pokémon stays popular as a franchise and a game series, it is very likely that GameFreak will continue making new games, new generations, new creatures, new features, new everything. New content which adds up to tons and tons of stuff to be put into the games.

Luckily, thanks to Moore's Law and ongoing advances in computer storage technology, the amount of data will stay at a comfortably manageable level for all the foreseeable future. For the sake of discussion, let us assume that as the amount of content in Pokémon grows, the storage capacity of game cards will grow with it, allowing for the games to be stored in a practical fashion like they have always been. Let us also assume that the franchise's popularity will not wane to the point of discontinuation for many years to come.

However, I feel that other aspects of the game do not scale as well. Counting formes and Mega Evolutions, we've passed eight hundred different monsters to catch and battle in the series. Only six can be used at any given time. Assuming you spend half an hour catching and training one Pokémon/form/Mega to a reasonable level, filling out the entire Pokédex with adequately trained Pokémon takes two weeks full-time.


However, the number itself is not as big of a problem as other issues. Power creep is well documented elsewhere, so I won't go deeply into that right now. However, the issue of uniqueness and diversity could use some attention:

In the beginning, GameFreak created 151 Pokémon and 165 moves of 15 different types. This allowed the various types and moves to be quite different from another, and uniqueness to the point of deficiency was not unusual. For instance, the only Dragon-type move dealt a fixed number of Hit Points (In following generations, this line of thought was reflected somewhat, in that Dragon moves hit almost every other type for neutral damage). The strongest moves were all Normal-types and thus hit most things neutrally. There was Hyper Beam which required a recharge turn, and Selfdestruct and Explosion which fainted the users. Slightly behind those moves in terms of power were the power of the elements: Hydro Pump, Thunder, Solarbeam, Fire Blast and Blizzard. Deadly, but with drawbacks such as poor accuracy, low PP, and mandatory charge turns. That was the situation when Pokémon was first envisioned and made into games.

Later generations saw certain trends rise up around the various types. Most of them had a trait or two that made the type stand out compared to others: Rock moves are powerful, but inaccurate. Bug moves have less power, but a whole host of side effects. Ghost moves have 100 % accuracy, but usually low power - to compensate, they have nasty secondary effects. Dark moves are weak unless certain conditions are in place - at which point they might be terribly strong. On the Pokémon side, there is also certain trends: Steel Pokémon are slow, but with great physical Defense. Electric types have high Speed, Psychic types incline to the Special side, Dark types have high Attack, Rock types are Physical, Dragons are rare but powerful, and so on.

Some trends have been built up across the type chart, but the increasing number of moves and Pokémon of each type seems to blur the differences as generations pass. Suddenly, we have Physically-oriented Psychic Pokémon, and Specially-oriented Rocks. You can catch Dragon Pokémon in the early routes of the game now. In Gen. I, there were 15 moves with 100 Base Power or higher. In Gen. VI, there are 27 moves at or above BP 130. The only type with no moves above 120 BP is Dark (again, unless certain conditions are met. Punishment can have a base power of 200, for instance, and Fling has a BP of 130 if an Iron Ball is held). So much for different types warranting different strategies, the "bulldozer option" of spamming powerful STAB moves are now available to nearly all Pokémon types, and as movepools widen more and more Pokémon of every type can go down that route.

GameFreak continues to make new moves, and to avoid making the same moves over and over, or to exceed the conventional limits on base power or secondary effects, moves of different types are getting closer and closer to another. Moves with heightened priority (which originally only meant Quick Attack) are now numbered in the high thirties. There are now seven never-miss-moves of all types (up from only Swift). There are now Hyper Beam variants of six different types, with seven functionally identical versions all in all.

The limits for diversity of moves and Pokémon have gone generally unchanged since the Special stat was split. Arguably, the Physical/Special split in Gen. IV also gave some leeway, then again now moves can be identical apart from the damage category (such as Mach Punch and Vacuum Wave - is this a good or a bad thing?).

Moves aside, what about the differences in the Pokémon themselves? 18 different types, that can be combined in pairs, and six Base stats ranging between 1 and 255 allows for a near-infinite number of combinations in theory, but in practise most notably different combinations have been tried already. There are only a few holes left to fill, for instance only 40 type combinations are left unused according to Bulbapedia. Soon we'll have exhausted nearly every option, and variety in stat spreads are used up as we go too. The functional difference between, say, a 85/90/80/70/80/130 stat spread on an Ice Pokémon versus a Poison/Flying Pokémon is not that big.
As more Pokémon are created within the same design limits, the new Pokémon will look more and more like Pokémon we've seen already, albeit usually with a different typing. But for how long will it be interesting to see the same base stat spreads on new types of Pokémon?



Even outside the issues of uniqueness and diversity, there are problems with the current model. For instance, we have accumulated a total of 16 event-exclusive Pokémon (18 if we count Floette-E, Deoxys and Spiky-eared Pichu). Even with a promotion every month, there still wouldn't be enough time to get all event Pokémon on one game pair before the next games are released.

Or what about legendary Pokémon requiring locations/items/tutors to change formes? We already need the equivalent of a small town of people and places to cater for the forme changers in the latest games. Rotom requires its appliances, Deoxys warrants a meteor, the Genies have their glass, Kyurem its splicers, you need to get the Orbs from somewhere, the Relic Song must be tutored, a Gracidea must be found... and don't even get me started on the forty-odd Mega Stones. That's a lot of stuff to put into the world for every new game, and the amount of required content is growing.

Or let us talk about Abilities. When they were first introduced, every Pokémon could have an ability. Some could have two. Gen. IV introduced a slew of new abilities. Most were distributed so that Pokémon with one previous ability now could have two, only a few Pokémon with abilities tailored to them were left with only one. Then Gen. V introduced Hidden abilities, so that the new Gen. V abilities could be given to older-Gen Pokémon, allowing for some Pokémon to have three Abilities. Gen. VI gave many new abilities to old Pokémon via Mega Evolution. After all, these "rules" generally apply:

• New abilities are interesting, and we'd like GameFreak to keep creating new ones for every generation.
• Most existing Pokémon have their available Ability slots filled up by now, unless they are tailored for a specific ability (i.e. Shedinja).
• Existing Pokémon will constitute a bigger and bigger majority of all Pokémon for every new Generation.
• => Unless something is done, new Abilities will be restricted to new Pokémon as time goes by.
• If something is done, the Pokémon with only one ability will be left behind, and/or the system for ability distribution will be a bit of a mess. Imagine breeding for competitive 'mons if every Pokémon could have five regular abilities, for instance.

Anyway, I feel that I've given enough examples by now. I'd like to hear what you think. Here are some suggested (note: not required) points of discussion:

• What aspects of the current model of Pokémon will conflict with our desire for GameFreak to keep making new games?
• Is there a problem at all by this point? Will there be in the foreseeable future? Or am I unnecessarily worried?
  
• Will fixing the problem(s) require a total model overhaul? Will Pokémon continue to be Pokémon if measures are implemented to fix the problems? I.e. sacrificing existing content to make place for something new, or drastically changing gameplay.
• How does Mega Evolution fit into this? A bold move to keep things from going stale, or another system that won't scale well as time goes by?
  
• Are there easy solutions to any problems? Please do not suggest anything without analysing the situation first, and for Pete's sake try to be credible. This is not a wishlist thread and posts such as this will be deleted within seconds of us even noticing them.

Happy discussing!

 

[Caramel Prisoner]

Interesting topic. I've certainly noticed this trend, and have been bothered by it, though in a different way - namely, playing XY with its incredible variety of available pokemon, all with different abilities, tons of possible movesets, a wide range of item choices and all that felt overwhelming to the point that I still have yet to finish the game. It's not what you were getting at, but it's caused by the same problems you described.

I believe GameFreak actually noticed it themselves, choosing to do a "reset" with Black and White simply to work around it - it's much easier to justify making yet another early game Normal/Flying bird, one more three-stage trade evolution rock type, another annoying bat pokemon, another defensive pink blob with healing powers, (... you get the idea) when their original counterparts aren't available right next to them.

 

[Jimera0]

I think those changes to trends based on typing and the like that you mentioned was partially to avoid the issue you're worried about; repetitive content. After all, if every Electric type had had to be a fast, frail special attacker for the past 3 generations, things would've gotten mighty dull when it comes to Electric types. I personally find the occasional breaking of type stereotypes to be very refreshing, as it allows Gamefreak to explore new design concepts and game-play permutations.

Right now I don't think we're in any danger of Pokemon becoming too homogeneous. We're still seeing plenty of interesting innovation and aside from the traditional repetition that's always been there (Route 1 Rodents and birds anyone?), most Pokemon designs and concepts manage to be unique and interesting in their own right. I honestly don't see much repetition of base stat distribution yet, nor "type swapped" Pokemon, outside of stuff that's done more for consistency (IE Slow, hard hitting tanks and fragile speedsters are always going to be archetypes), and even with what little there is, the variability of move pools and abilities usually help to differentiate Pokemon anyway. In fact I don't really see this becoming a problem with the current model; there's just too many elements that go into defining a Pokemon. Stats, ability, typing, movepool, design, species unique mechanics, there's just too many ways to combine these elements, and on top of that Gamefreak can, and has, added additional elements occasionally to further increase variety. It's true that they could end up adding too many elements eventually, but they've been introduced VERY slowly, so it's unlikely that they'd hit this threshold for many more generations.

No, the only real issue I see with sustainability is the capacity of the developers to include all the old assets with each subsequent game release. Not technical capacity of course, I mean developmental capacity. Including all those old assets from previous games takes time and money; people have to model, code and bug test that stuff. As the backlog from previous generations gets larger and larger including old assets will take up a larger and larger part of the development budget. Now thankfully, Gamefreak is a successful company with access to a lot of resources, so this isn't an issue yet, but it could be in the distant future. The most obvious solutions to this (create less new content that needs to be grandfathered into subsequent games, or discontinuing old content) obviously aren't going to be popular with fans, so Gamefreak might end up having to get creative with how to they include older content and how they introduce new content.

Again though, I don't see this being a problem in the immediate future. I suspect we've got several more generations of Pokemon before any of this really becomes a problem, and by then Gamefreak will likely have come up with countermeasures to ensure continued variety without cutting out old content. Pokemon hasn't stuck around for as long as it has by being unsustainable.

 

[noobcubed]

This is the sort of thing I had always had in the back of my mind but never really thought out that thoroughly. Mauville City on ORAS is probably the starkest indicator yet of Pokemon struggling underneath the weight of its own content - bundling all the places where you can change Rotom Formes/Genesect plates/etc just showed me how much of that kind of stuff there was.

The problem is, GameFreak can keep creating new Pokemon until the Miltanks come home - but each new Pokemon that GameFreak adds less new content than the last one did, as Pokemon become ever more similar. You've already mentioned the number of competitive niches that a Pokemon can fill, but for me a bigger issue is how many new aesthetic designs they can come up with. A piece of concept art takes a lot more thought than a stat distribution. There are basically no familiar real-world animals that don't have at least one Pokemon modelled after them, which means either (a) new Pokemon are visually similar to old ones or (b) new Pokmon are ice creams, trash piles and key rings.

Jimera0 the obvious way to solve your problem with new titles taking up progressively more development resources to preserve old content is to switch to an MMO-type model where you have just one game and continuously update it. The difference would be, rather than paying a subscription fee like you would for an MMO, to pay for new content (effectively new "games" within the one big game) as DLC. Probably not the best way of doing things until the current model becomes unviable though.

 

[Detective Barricade]

This is the sort of thing I had always had in the back of my mind but never really thought out that thoroughly. Mauville City on ORAS is probably the starkest indicator yet of Pokemon struggling underneath the weight of its own content - bundling all the places where you can change Rotom Formes/Genesect plates/etc just showed me how much of that kind of stuff there was.

The problem is, GameFreak can keep creating new Pokemon until the Miltanks come home - but each new Pokemon that GameFreak adds less new content than the last one did, as Pokemon become ever more similar. You've already mentioned the number of competitive niches that a Pokemon can fill, but for me a bigger issue is how many new aesthetic designs they can come up with. A piece of concept art takes a lot more thought than a stat distribution. There are basically no familiar real-world animals that don't have at least one Pokemon modelled after them, which means either (a) new Pokemon are visually similar to old ones or (b) new Pokmon are ice creams, trash piles and key rings.

Jimera0 the obvious way to solve your problem with new titles taking up progressively more development resources to preserve old content is to switch to an MMO-type model where you have just one game and continuously update it. The difference would be, rather than paying a subscription fee like you would for an MMO, to pay for new content (effectively new "games" within the one big game) as DLC. Probably not the best way of doing things until the current model becomes unviable though.

...I have no qualms over ice cream, trash bags, and key rings. Besides, Pokemon can still cover the same basic animal but in a different way - why, just look at Spinda and Pangoro. There's also myths and legends from various regions they can call upon, if they wish.

Sure, Game Freak may run out of ideas, but I feel like that isn't for some time to come yet. It's only been two generations that the new regions aren't based in Japan, so there's still plenty of places to draw inspiration from and thus inspire some new Pokemon designs. I think part of the solution is to let other artists come up with some concept art which Ken Sugimori (I'm terribly sorry if I butchered his name...) then approves and fine tunes - like Golurk and even Vanilluxe had been.

 

[rufus drumknott]

(b) new Pokmon are ice creams, trash piles and key rings.

The ice cream might have been weird, I grant you that, but the trash piles and key rings were inspired and I love them. There have been lots of other cool Pokemon based on non-living things like Honedge/Doublade/Aegislash (you can't tell me that line isn't amazing in design) and I, for one, would rather see more keys than more cats, much as I love cats.

When it comes to designing Pokemon, I admittedly can't think of anything that hasn't been done yet, but I can think of stuff that has only been used once or twice and could be used differently; and I'm no zoologist, I'm sure there are lots of animals that have yet to be done. I think allowing for more designers would be a good idea, as long as they're supervised to keep to the spirit of Pokemon, of course!

As for expanding content, I do like the idea of simply adding content to one game instead of making a fresh game every time. Maybe something like new games joining onto previous games to allow for more content or a new region to explore. The problem there, though, would be that Pokemon is about going on an adventure as a kid, seeing the world, meeting new people, etc. If new games just added to a previous game, it wouldn't be the same sense of 'a fresh new adventure!' which I think most people would say is important to the games. But it's a start if GF find themselves pressed to keep old content and add new ones. They're creative geniuses, if they went that route, they'd figure something out.

Edit: I also like how scientific the thread title sounds. I feel like we are all very professional researchers /dumb nerd

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

This is the sort of thing I had always had in the back of my mind but never really thought out that thoroughly. Mauville City on ORAS is probably the starkest indicator yet of Pokemon struggling underneath the weight of its own content - bundling all the places where you can change Rotom Formes/Genesect plates/etc just showed me how much of that kind of stuff there was.

The problem is, GameFreak can keep creating new Pokemon until the Miltanks come home - but each new Pokemon that GameFreak adds less new content than the last one did, as Pokemon become ever more similar. You've already mentioned the number of competitive niches that a Pokemon can fill, but for me a bigger issue is how many new aesthetic designs they can come up with. A piece of concept art takes a lot more thought than a stat distribution. There are basically no familiar real-world animals that don't have at least one Pokemon modelled after them, which means either (a) new Pokemon are visually similar to old ones or (b) new Pokmon are ice creams, trash piles and key rings.

Jimera0 the obvious way to solve your problem with new titles taking up progressively more development resources to preserve old content is to switch to an MMO-type model where you have just one game and continuously update it. The difference would be, rather than paying a subscription fee like you would for an MMO, to pay for new content (effectively new "games" within the one big game) as DLC. Probably not the best way of doing things until the current model becomes unviable though.

Come on, Garbodor is da bess and you know it.

Either way, whenever the current model stops working (which probably won't happen very soon - I'm sure Game Freak can find some crazy shit to make a Pokemon out of, like a bed or something, I mean come on they used ice cream, trash bags, keys, and fucking gears to make Pokemon) I'm sure Game Freak would be able to replace it - I mean, Pokemon makes a lot of money. Lots. It'd be stupid of them to just let such a cash cow die.

I feel like as long as, regarding new Pokemon, they give us more inanimate objects than actual animals (because let's face it, at this point the inanimate objects tend to be more original at this point,) they can sustain the model for a while. Also, maybe Mega Evolution could be a nice way to sustain this model. We could maybe get fewer new Pokemon (like in XY) and more Mega Evolutions, hell, even new evolutions for old Pokemon so that way people who loved those old Pokemon could have something new.

Either way, Jimera0 pretty much covered it - any questions of sustainability probably won't be a problem in the near future, and even when it does become apparent, Game Freak will probably find some kind of way to ensure new variety without cutting old content. In fact, maybe Mega Evolution was made to ensure said variety - that allows Game Freak to add more variety, give an old Pokemon new life. In addition, it probably also allows Game Freak to get away with adding fewer new Pokemon, even if much of it is just fanservice (come on, Charizard getting TWO Mega Evolutions?) We'll probably see Game Freak adding a bunch of crazy new things like how they put Mega Evolution in X and Y.

 

[Kurona]

aside from the traditional repetition that's always been there (Route 1 Rodents and birds anyone?), most Pokemon designs and concepts manage to be unique and interesting in their own right.

I'd like to add to this in that even the rodents and birds manage to be unique in their own way. Ignoring gen 5's disgusting lack of innovation and inspiration in Pidove and Patrat, each gen seems to at least try and bring something new to the table. This is most noticeable in the birds - Pidgeot was just your general all-around bird that was sort of fast, Noctowl was a tanky 'mon with a lot of psychic based attacks, Swellow was a very fragile speedster, Staraptor went balls to the wall offence and even got the most powerful fighting type move in the game, and Talonflame is the first regional bird to not have the normal/flying typing (also gale wings spam lol)
Rodents it's a little harder to see, of course, but there is a sort of attempt recently you can glean, mostly in the fact that Bibarel and Diggersby have different typings and that Diggersby is actually made extremely powerful by it's hidden ability.

Was going to say I'd like to see Codraroll have his say on this topic because this is the sort of thing he'd have interesting things to say on but then I realized he started it lel

 

[Celticpride]

There are basically no familiar real-world animals that don't have at least one Pokemon modelled after them, which means either (a) new Pokemon are visually similar to old ones or (b) new Pokmon are ice creams, trash piles and key rings.

I'm still waiting on my Dolphin Pokemon.

On-topic, the sustainability is not really an issue from a money standpoint, more from a content standpoint. Eventually the latter will impact the former, but it would take a lot for that to happen. Legit curious, how easy is it for someone who jumped in around gen 5 or 6 to catch-up? I've played since gen 2 (and I played gen 1 backwards) so I've been able to add over time. How easy is it to learn 500+ mons at a time, not to mention moves and abilities? That may play a part in this.

 

[MetalKing1417]

I'd like to add to this in that even the rodents and birds manage to be unique in their own way. Ignoring gen 5's disgusting lack of innovation and inspiration in Pidove and Patrat, each gen seems to at least try and bring something new to the table. This is most noticeable in the birds - Pidgeot was just your general all-around bird that was sort of fast, Noctowl was a tanky 'mon with a lot of psychic based attacks, Swellow was a very fragile speedster, Staraptor went balls to the wall offence and even got the most powerful fighting type move in the game, and Talonflame is the first regional bird to not have the normal/flying typing (also gale wings spam lol)

Minor Note: first gen had two lines of regional birds: The aforementioned Pidgy line and the Spearow line.

As for the content, I am still waiting for Gamefreak to truly turn pokemon into a wide open sandbox similar to the elder scrolls. So much can be done with that.

Furthermore in terms of move, I personally would like to at the very least see more priority moves and a never miss move of every type on both sides of the special split (DIE MINIMIZE CHANSEY DIE!). However, since the end of the 4th gen, new moves of those types have been few and far between.

 

[noobcubed]

As for the content, I am still waiting for Gamefreak to truly turn pokemon into a wide open sandbox similar to the elder scrolls. So much can be done with that.

I've heard this so many times I'm just sick of it. If you want to play Skyrim, play Skyrim. What next, turning Mario into a gritty military first-person shooter?

 

[Adamant Zoroark]

I've heard this so many times I'm just sick of it. If you want to play Skyrim, play Skyrim. What next, turning Mario into a gritty military first-person shooter?

Someone needs to get on this. I'd play that.

Either way, I don't really care if Game Freak does that or not, but it should probably be considered that Skyrim probably isn't the kind of game you'd get for your nine-year-old.

 

[Monsoon]

They've still got a lot of potential in the remakes. Hopefully Crystal and Plat. Although I fear I may be in for a long wait.

 

[DHR-107]

They've still got a lot of potential in the remakes. Hopefully Crystal and Plat. Although I fear I may be in for a long wait.

HGSS incorporated the majority of the Crystal storyline... I'd be surprised if they even did an Emerald remake at this point, but it would make sense considering how much is "missing" from ORAS.

Anyway, I feel that I've given enough examples by now. I'd like to hear what you think. Here are some suggested (note: not required) points of discussion:

• What aspects of the current model of Pokémon will conflict with our desire for GameFreak to keep making new games?
• Is there a problem at all by this point? Will there be in the foreseeable future? Or am I unnecessarily worried?
  
• Will fixing the problem(s) require a total model overhaul? Will Pokémon continue to be Pokémon if measures are implemented to fix the problems? I.e. sacrificing existing content to make place for something new, or drastically changing gameplay.
• How does Mega Evolution fit into this? A bold move to keep things from going stale, or another system that won't scale well as time goes by?
  
• Are there easy solutions to any problems? Please do not suggest anything without analysing the situation first, and for Pete's sake try to be credible. This is not a wishlist thread and posts such as this will be deleted within seconds of us even noticing them.

Happy discussing!

I believe I spoke to Codraroll on this topic on IRC a few weeks back (You should be on more often :P), which I presume is what set up this thread (which is going to be pretty interesting).

For the points you laid down: I'm not sure what you mean with the first. I don't think for diehard fans there is anything GF can do which will limit our desires. I have to admit my own interest in Pokemon has waned slightly over ORAS with GF missing a beat with not adding other gen mons in certain places. But I doubt I am going to just up and abandon the series. With this many Pokemon it is quite conceivable to have many many games before you have to repeat a single Pokemon (as my sig denotes, I've been playing through with a huge amount of teams).

And I do slightly agree with you that there is a growing issue of all the event mons/moves/places/locations. I think ORAS covered this very tidily, but to do so they had to massively overhaul one of the previously smaller cities. It made sense their decision due to the powerplants etc, but imo Lilycove would have been a better choice. It already had the "big Pokemart" and I think having a large Coastal city in the same vein as Castelia would have been cool. At the end of the day, they could just make a brand new Island in the post game that has all that stuff on it. It would be a bit of an overload for new players, but wouldn't be that out of place for older players.

If you are correct with your "40 types not used" thing, I do not think we have anything to worry about when it comes to ideas of Pokemon. We still have a whole slew of Animals that don't appear in Pokemon (Someone earlier mentioned Dolphins which is the biggest example off the top of my head). We have no reason to not duplicate animals/plants either. No one batted an eyelid when Maractus popped up and joined in with Cacturne's Cactus role. Just look at the CaP art designs sometime for the number of different ideas a particular type comes up with. The differences between different Pokemon are huge. Even going with the "trash bag/ice cream" stereotype, let us please not forget that 3 gen 1 mons are gelatinous gloop. Hell, Grimer and Muk are sentient shit piles. Mega's are interesting from a lot of different points, I like how they are giving older mons a new lease of life with the addition of a big BST boost and a fairly radical redesign. I think this may become the biggest sticking point... We can only have 1 Mega per team. And some megas hugely outclass others. If we keep going at say 10~15 new Megas per game, we could end up with having as many Mega's as a dex to hold them.

I do not think there is a problem per say so far. I can understand where things are heading though. With Bank and other systems to help alleviate the way that you can transfer Pokemon around, I do not think we will be seeing that much of a drastic change to how Pokemon are stored/made (I'm making a big assumption here that Bank will be mostly compatible with the next set/all future games). Stats can be hugely variable and although types *tend* to follow trends, there is really no reason too. Just look at the multitude of Fakemon dexes that are everywhere for ideas on those...

 

[JXDK]

I think there are way too many pokemon species. To insist on introducing 100+ new species each gen compromises the quality of new designs. I don't think of myself as a genwunner or anything, but I do think great pokemon designs are few an far between in the newer gens (personally the last time I felt excited for the new pokemon roster was Gen IV).

My advise / wishful thinking would be for Gamefreak to introduce a small number of well-designed new pokemon going forward. And focus on tweaking and balancing existing species which are neglected or considered inferior - by introducing new evolution, new ability, giving a mega form or just buffing BST (there is already precedent in Gen VI).

 

[JES]

I'm not too worried about the series reaching a plateau just yet. Even I can think of more animals that would probably make great Pokemon.

• Termites=Bug/Ground
• A monster Water/Electric Eel
• A monstrous Megalodon Water type, with possibly a Dark typing
• A monstrous giant squid or octopus, with an additional Dark typing
• A Water or Bug/Poison type Cone Snail
• A Water type Dolphin
• A Fire or Poison/Bug Ant and/or Bombardier Beetle
• A Griffin Pokemon, with a possible Flying/Fairy combination
• A Unicorn/Alicorn Pokemon (Rapidash could possibly even get a Fire/Fairy or Flying evolution)
• A Bug/Steel, Rock, or Ground Pillbug
• An Electric Cheetah
• A Grass Stegosaurus, possibly a Rock-type fossil
• A Dilophosaurus, possibly a Poison/Rock fossil
• A Ghost/Poison or Ground Zombie (this was one of the new lines listed on that fake leaked 6th generation list)

And that is just off the top of my head.

And even I have to admit that making less Pokemon per generation is a sound idea. At first I was disappointed that there weren't as many new Pokemon as there usually are, but I think that I prefer quality over quantity. And many of the 6th Generation Pokemon for the most part were indeed of a good quality.

 

[Kurona]

I think there are way too many pokemon species. To insist on introducing 100+ new species each gen compromises the quality of new designs. I don't think of myself as a genwunner or anything, but I do think great pokemon designs are few an far between in the newer gens (personally the last time I felt excited for the new pokemon roster was Gen IV).

My advise / wishful thinking would be for Gamefreak to introduce a small number of well-designed new pokemon going forward. And focus on tweaking and balancing existing species which are neglected or considered inferior - by introducing new evolution, new ability, giving a mega form or just buffing BST (there is already precedent in Gen VI).

And this is why I love gen 6's smaller selection and the advent of Mega Evolution. It's a perfect fit for anyone who's been with the series for some time and knows there's too many 'mon each gen; gen 5 was just absolutely ridiculous with this.

 

[thelandlordsmm]

I was just waiting for someone to bring up the Dolphin Pokemon...

Anyway, I think a way around some of the issues is retconning some particular aspects to fit in the future games. For example, Secret Sword and Relic Song could just become level up moves for Keldeo and Meloetta, respectively, if fitting their tutors is too big of an issue. Perhaps more event exclusive mons will become available in game a la Deoxys.

 

[Skore]

Dolphins, Kangaroos, Koala Bears, Antelopes, how many breed of dogs are there? Just examples off the top of my head. There are oodles of possible animals to draw on, not to mention plants and inanimate objects.

No I don't think any lack of sustainability will come from them running out of pokemon ideas, as has been said above I think the main factor will be the sheer weight of previous content that will need to be included in each successive game for forme changes etc.

To cut down on the Megas and their obligatory stones, they could always go back to producing evolutions for previous gen mons, there are plenty to choose from that are still only 1-2 stages that could conceivably have actual evolutions to bring them up to a decent BST level and/or add in new typings/abilities.

They've also gone back to previous mons and tweaked their base stats, something that took them 6 generations to do and while it didn't make a massive difference to some pokemon, it did change others in how they're used competitively (Raichu getting that extra 10 Speed for example). If they were willing to continue to tweak the BSTs of some mons then that could be another way to subtly revitalise some of them.

 

[Celever]

Dolphins, Kangaroos, Koala Bears, Antelopes, how many breed of dogs are there? Just examples off the top of my head. There are oodles of possible animals to draw on, not to mention plants and inanimate objects.

Kangaroo = Kangaskhan
Antelope = Virizion, Cobalion, possibly Terrakion
Dolphin and Koalas are fine, but Koalas look fairly similar to pandas, especially when turned into Pokémon. That's the problem with playing off different dog breeds as well. We already have most of the stereotypes (little pretty dog = Furfrou, powerful bounding dog = Houndoom, Manectric. All eeveelutions are based on dogs too, which covers a wide spectrum of different categories of breeds).

However, there is no way a lack of design could ever happen. I remember a contest in Smeargle Studios where they had to retype a Pokémon's design and there were some convincing designs there. CAP is also an example of how different irl animal species can become very different Pokémon -- Mantine and Plasmanta anyone? I also find it somewhat of a non-issue, since even Ariados and Galvantula are quite similar from a desigan perspective, but different eniugh in every other way so that no one cares.

Also, I honestly think that Nintendo should start making a lot of Pokémon each generation again. I don't think they will, but I think they should. In Gen 6 it seems like GF was very focused on making each and every Pokémon at least fairly unique (new type combinations such as Inkay line, Greninja, Amaura line and of course the Fairy-Type. New stat spreads for a typing such as Avalugg. New abilities for subcategory such as Bunnelby line.) but I don't think this is the right way to go about it. I don't want cloned stat spreads, movepools and the like at all, but I like having more generic, forgettable Pokémon mixed in with the fan favourites. It lets fans of said Pokémon root for the forgotten and hidden gem, support it, hoping that it might find new life later on (Mawile and Vulpix, anyone?). The sad thing is that I think GF new what they were doing when they made certain Pokémon generic. Think about it: Stantler is a generic Normal-Type. It has some gimmicks like Hypnosis and other Psychic-Attacks, but that's it. Where do you find it? One route, and you have to go out of your way to find the real grass there. Finneon - generic Water-Type. Swift Swim, poor stats and nothing overly special about the movepool (Quiver Dance NOW is too late). Where do you find it? A cave to the south of an unimportant pretty much starting town via fishing with a Good/Super Rod iirc. Who would really look there? Same for Chimecho -- average stats, nothing special with the moveset or abilities... Found in one place on top of Mt. Pyre or w/e it is.

GameFreak knows how to have a Pokémon make an impression, and on the less popular and somewhat forgotten Pokémon they are lacking this, shoved into one area with little incentive for a player to go searching for one. I think it's clear to seee that GF did this on purpose, and if they make less Pokémon designs, they only make it harder to have the "forgotten Pokémon" which is an aspect of the games at this point just as much as any other.

As far as sustainability in and of itself goes... I mean, we're fine. If push comes to shove, GF can just release two cartridges in one box and allow you to easily transfer your current adventure over from one cartridge to another, splitting the game into essentially two halves. If handhelds aren't developing quickly enough, GF can produce some home comsole RPGs a la Colo and XD to pass the time and keep everyone satisfied. I can't see money becoming an issue, because let's face it, GF is loaded! Pokémon is an absolute best seller 100% of the time. If games between fewer and farther between, I wouldn't care as long as they are truly amazing games again... Gen 6 thus far has been underwhelming, and while ORAS had the potential to be incredible, it just feels rushed. It was released what, 1 year after XY? A remake doesn't take as much time as a brand new game, sure, but one year? The games feel rushed, and it seems like that's because they were rushed. GF needs to take a step back and focus on make the next generation the greatest it can possibly be, even if it means releasing fewer other games while they are developing it. And yes, it would be too early to talk about Gen 7 usually since Gen 6 has only been around for 2 years, but GF has a model of new games --> remakes (if applicable) --> 3rd game(s) --> next generation. We're already done with the remakes, and the 3 rd game isn't going to be anything special IMO, looking at Kalos right now. As a community looking farther into the future is the optimal ideal rn.

Something important has to be said, though. GF has tried to revelutionise their franchise already with ORAS. They made the game easier. The director said that this was a conscious decision so as to appeal more to casual gamers who sort of play Candy Crush all day and don't want a huge challenge or experience out of their games. This ideal is quite simply bullshit for Pokémon, because if you have a mobile user who just likes pick up and play, what incentive do they have to buy a Pokémon game, and likely a 3DS in the process? GF is trying to appeal to the totally polar demographic to who they should be, which is more serious gamers. Realistically, they should have different difficulties like in BW2, but available at the start of the game and for both versions. Regular, hard, and if you beat hard it unlocks master (which stays unlocked when you delete your data!) for actual competitive gamers. Having a master rank would actually bring back fans who previously left the franchise because it grew stale to them...

GF is headed in the wrong direction IMO, and that is somethng that needs to change soon...

 

[iamfanboy]

One thing that would help in Generation 7 is culling moves, and maybe even Pokemon, entirely.

Culling moves would be easy. Seriously, has anyone ever said "Yes" when Dragonite asks if it can learn Hyper Beam? Why have both Trick and Switcheroo when they do exactly the same damn thing? If a Poke transferred via Pokebank has an 'culled move' either delete it or replace it with an equivalent move. Good gods, imagine how much better it would be if Dragonite asked, "Hey, can I learn Extremespeed?" instead of a useless move that even seven year olds know is garbage.

Merging many (if not all) of the identical moves would be wonderful too IMHO. Stat boosting/lowering moves are some of the worst offenders here. Why have Leer, Screech, AND Tail Whip? Foresight and Odor Sleuth? Harden, Withdraw, and Defense Curl? Whirlwind and Roar? I'd personally replace some of the strictly worse with the strictly better, like Sing/Hypnosis, Sleep Powder/Spore, Selfdestruct/Explosion, but arguments could be made that would invalidate some pokes (isn't Spore like one of the few real reasons to use Breloom?)

The argument could also be made for those being flavorful names and keeping them, and I could agree with some such as like Milk Drink/Softboiled/Slack Off/Recover, or Moonlight/Synthesis, or Agility/Rock Polish (though really, why does Metragross learn both?) but seriously, do we need 3 moves for "Reduce defense one step" or "Raise defense one step"? It'd make programming the game easier and reduce the footprint of the whole thing.


Culling Pokemon would be... more difficult, but it would simplify competitive play and the Pokedex issue - seriously, WHY DO WE NEED a Pidove line and a Starly line when we've got a Pidgey line? Merge the three, and have the Pidgey line count towards 16-18, 396-398, and 519-521 (TBH I like the Starly line the most, but that's probably because I played Platinum first!) While Gen V is the worst in this regard, all the generations could do with a touch of culling - remove Cascoon and Dustox for example, and only have Wurmple-Silcoon-Beautifly with the latter two counting towards the now-culled slots.

The only problem is keeping the repeat designs that actually add distinction - and fan favorites, of course. I do like the difference between the Abra and Solosis lines - both psychic types who evolve via trade finally, but one is a frail speedster and the other is a bulky defender. Is there enough difference between Timburr and Machop's lines to justify keeping both? Spearow/Rufflet/Taillow? Tauros/Bouffalant? Ducklett/Wingull?

World explanation might be handwaved away that some species went extinct or merged with others - maybe have new designs that incorporate the elements of any merged lines (Pidgey with a Starly head and Pidove coloring, perhaps?)

Part of the problem is that the Game Freak got into a mindset of "New Pokemon = better gameplay" way back in gen 3, went way overboard in gen5, and they were wrong and should move to fix it.

Mix up what's available and you'll make it fresh and fun. In some ways, for example, I enjoyed White 2 more than White because it let you catch and use Pokemon that you'd never had relevant at low/medium levels before - I'd NEVER used a Riolu AS A RIOLU or a Growlithe AS A GROWLITHE, for example, and the Growlithe was a lot more fun than some red monkey with a flaming poo on its head.

I can't say "Don't design new Pokemon", because I'm still hoping for a Dark-Psychic-Fighting trio of starters, and there are certainly design spaces for new pocket monsters. Just... I want them to look at the ones they have first.

 

[noobcubed]

Something important has to be said, though. GF has tried to revelutionise their franchise already with ORAS. They made the game easier. The director said that this was a conscious decision so as to appeal more to casual gamers who sort of play Candy Crush all day and don't want a huge challenge or experience out of their games. This ideal is quite simply bullshit for Pokémon, because if you have a mobile user who just likes pick up and play, what incentive do they have to buy a Pokémon game, and likely a 3DS in the process? GF is trying to appeal to the totally polar demographic to who they should be, which is more serious gamers. Realistically, they should have different difficulties like in BW2, but available at the start of the game and for both versions. Regular, hard, and if you beat hard it unlocks master (which stays unlocked when you delete your data!) for actual competitive gamers. Having a master rank would actually bring back fans who previously left the franchise because it grew stale to them...

GF is headed in the wrong direction IMO, and that is something that needs to change soon...

I loved the rest of your post (I just don't use the Like button on principle), but on the last paragraph I totally disagree. What makes Pokemon so great is that maybe no other game series can have such a range of experiences in terms of depth. From the player who turns EXP share on, gets through the single-player by spamming the most powerful super-effective moves and is done with the game after the Elite Four, to those who spend hours upon hours building the perfect team for VGC and then travel across the world to compete. Making single-player easier doesn't compromise the hardcore audience (even if you prefer single player nuzlockes, speedrunning etc exist for those who like to challenge themselves) - it merely expands the number of people interested in buying and playing the games.

By the way, Animal Crossing: New Leaf is a casual game on the 3DS aimed at the Candy Crush demographic, and it sold like hot cakes (over 7 million units!) I would have thought it sold at least a million 3DSes by itself. So there are casual gamers out there willing to drop significant money on handheld games (and of course, many of them are already dropping much more than this on so-called free-to-play games).

 

[rufus drumknott]

This is totally my opinion, but culling Pokemon and moves is exactly what Game Freak should do if they wanted me to never pick up a new Pokemon game ever again.

And tbh I don't actually blame GF for trying to make the game easier or more casual or taking out the Battle Frontier so they can appeal to a new audience, or because they know that only a small percent of their audience will invest time in the extra features. This totally makes sense to me. I respect the fact that GF can drop Pokemon if it stopped appealing to the masses, and I don't think they owe me anything just because I'm a serious gamer who only puts my 3DS down to work, eat, and sleep. And sometimes I don't do the eating and sleeping. It's not like ORAS was a total bore either. There are so many things to do, both old features to try again (breeding, Battle Maison), and new features to try out (DexNav, mirage spots, all these legendaries). It's still the Pokemon I've loved since I was a kid and could play continuously until the next game came out.

I get that the older fanbase (I'm one of them, I'd know!) finds the most recent games lacklustre, but I don't think it points to the Pokemon failing, becoming old, or watered down. I think GF had a good pace going, still has it, and probably will continue to have it, even if they have to adjust games so that newer or different audiences can get into it.

 

[Celever]

I loved the rest of your post (I just don't use the Like button on principle), but on the last paragraph I totally disagree. What makes Pokemon so great is that maybe no other game series can have such a range of experiences in terms of depth. From the player who turns EXP share on, gets through the single-player by spamming the most powerful super-effective moves and is done with the game after the Elite Four, to those who spend hours upon hours building the perfect team for VGC and then travel across the world to compete. Making single-player easier doesn't compromise the hardcore audience (even if you prefer single player nuzlockes, speedrunning etc exist for those who like to challenge themselves) - it merely expands the number of people interested in buying and playing the games.

By the way, Animal Crossing: New Leaf is a casual game on the 3DS aimed at the Candy Crush demographic, and it sold like hot cakes (over 7 million units!) I would have thought it sold at least a million 3DSes by itself. So there are casual gamers out there willing to drop significant money on handheld games (and of course, many of them are already dropping much more than this on so-called free-to-play games).

Animal Crossing isn't Pokémon. Animal Crossing is a game without a goal, which quite simply involves picking up and playing for a little bit. Pull up a few weeds, talk to your villagers and brew a bit of coffee. Pokémon is a single player experience. It is there to challenge and it has an aim at the end. I think it's obvious that a game like a solo RPG would obviously be less appealing to a Candy Crush demographic than Animal Crossing, which is just a game with the sole purpose of having no purpose.

Pokémon has a huge range of ways to play through the game, which is why my idea of having an actual easy to use, available from the start difficulty setting is good. If the substantially fewer but still existant Candy Crush fans want to play Pokémon, they can choose the regular (easy) setting. For proper Pokémon fans they can pick hard, and once you've beaten the game and want a legitimate challenge you can play master. It's a simple idea, but it fits all demographics who may want to play the game perfectly.

One thing that would help in Generation 7 is culling moves, and maybe even Pokemon, entirely.

Culling moves would be easy. Seriously, has anyone ever said "Yes" when Dragonite asks if it can learn Hyper Beam? Why have both Trick and Switcheroo when they do exactly the same damn thing? If a Poke transferred via Pokebank has an 'culled move' either delete it or replace it with an equivalent move. Good gods, imagine how much better it would be if Dragonite asked, "Hey, can I learn Extremespeed?" instead of a useless move that even seven year olds know is garbage.

Merging many (if not all) of the identical moves would be wonderful too IMHO. Stat boosting/lowering moves are some of the worst offenders here. Why have Leer, Screech, AND Tail Whip? Foresight and Odor Sleuth? Harden, Withdraw, and Defense Curl? Whirlwind and Roar? I'd personally replace some of the strictly worse with the strictly better, like Sing/Hypnosis, Sleep Powder/Spore, Selfdestruct/Explosion, but arguments could be made that would invalidate some pokes (isn't Spore like one of the few real reasons to use Breloom?)

The argument could also be made for those being flavorful names and keeping them, and I could agree with some such as like Milk Drink/Softboiled/Slack Off/Recover, or Moonlight/Synthesis, or Agility/Rock Polish (though really, why does Metragross learn both?) but seriously, do we need 3 moves for "Reduce defense one step" or "Raise defense one step"? It'd make programming the game easier and reduce the footprint of the whole thing.


Culling Pokemon would be... more difficult, but it would simplify competitive play and the Pokedex issue - seriously, WHY DO WE NEED a Pidove line and a Starly line when we've got a Pidgey line? Merge the three, and have the Pidgey line count towards 16-18, 396-398, and 519-521 (TBH I like the Starly line the most, but that's probably because I played Platinum first!) While Gen V is the worst in this regard, all the generations could do with a touch of culling - remove Cascoon and Dustox for example, and only have Wurmple-Silcoon-Beautifly with the latter two counting towards the now-culled slots.

The only problem is keeping the repeat designs that actually add distinction - and fan favorites, of course. I do like the difference between the Abra and Solosis lines - both psychic types who evolve via trade finally, but one is a frail speedster and the other is a bulky defender. Is there enough difference between Timburr and Machop's lines to justify keeping both? Spearow/Rufflet/Taillow? Tauros/Bouffalant? Ducklett/Wingull?

World explanation might be handwaved away that some species went extinct or merged with others - maybe have new designs that incorporate the elements of any merged lines (Pidgey with a Starly head and Pidove coloring, perhaps?)

Part of the problem is that the Game Freak got into a mindset of "New Pokemon = better gameplay" way back in gen 3, went way overboard in gen5, and they were wrong and should move to fix it.

Mix up what's available and you'll make it fresh and fun. In some ways, for example, I enjoyed White 2 more than White because it let you catch and use Pokemon that you'd never had relevant at low/medium levels before - I'd NEVER used a Riolu AS A RIOLU or a Growlithe AS A GROWLITHE, for example, and the Growlithe was a lot more fun than some red monkey with a flaming poo on its head.

I can't say "Don't design new Pokemon", because I'm still hoping for a Dark-Psychic-Fighting trio of starters, and there are certainly design spaces for new pocket monsters. Just... I want them to look at the ones they have first.

No. GameFreak cannot fuck over the fans so severely. Personally, some of my favourite Pokémon would be the first to be axed (Stantler, Chimecho, Dunsparce etc.) so personally this would make me hesitant to give GF my business any more, and I know that it would make thousands others around the world feel the same way.

Merging moves is also a very bad idea. It would mean axing various moves from movesets entirely. Switcheroo and Trick exist because having Lopunny use Trick doesn't make much sense, but Lopunny has Klutz so it poses a gimmicky, but somewhat useful strategy. It is flavour, but flavour is important to Pokémon.

Plus, if two moves have exactly the same effect, can GF not just c/p the coding and give it a new name, animation and if neede typing? Doesn't seem like much of a waste of time or resources to me.

 

[JES]

One thing that would help in Generation 7 is culling moves, and maybe even Pokemon, entirely.

Culling moves would be easy. Seriously, has anyone ever said "Yes" when Dragonite asks if it can learn Hyper Beam? Why have both Trick and Switcheroo when they do exactly the same damn thing? If a Poke transferred via Pokebank has an 'culled move' either delete it or replace it with an equivalent move. Good gods, imagine how much better it would be if Dragonite asked, "Hey, can I learn Extremespeed?" instead of a useless move that even seven year olds know is garbage.

Merging many (if not all) of the identical moves would be wonderful too IMHO. Stat boosting/lowering moves are some of the worst offenders here. Why have Leer, Screech, AND Tail Whip? Foresight and Odor Sleuth? Harden, Withdraw, and Defense Curl? Whirlwind and Roar? I'd personally replace some of the strictly worse with the strictly better, like Sing/Hypnosis, Sleep Powder/Spore, Selfdestruct/Explosion, but arguments could be made that would invalidate some pokes (isn't Spore like one of the few real reasons to use Breloom?)

The argument could also be made for those being flavorful names and keeping them, and I could agree with some such as like Milk Drink/Softboiled/Slack Off/Recover, or Moonlight/Synthesis, or Agility/Rock Polish (though really, why does Metragross learn both?) but seriously, do we need 3 moves for "Reduce defense one step" or "Raise defense one step"? It'd make programming the game easier and reduce the footprint of the whole thing.


Culling Pokemon would be... more difficult, but it would simplify competitive play and the Pokedex issue - seriously, WHY DO WE NEED a Pidove line and a Starly line when we've got a Pidgey line? Merge the three, and have the Pidgey line count towards 16-18, 396-398, and 519-521 (TBH I like the Starly line the most, but that's probably because I played Platinum first!) While Gen V is the worst in this regard, all the generations could do with a touch of culling - remove Cascoon and Dustox for example, and only have Wurmple-Silcoon-Beautifly with the latter two counting towards the now-culled slots.

The only problem is keeping the repeat designs that actually add distinction - and fan favorites, of course. I do like the difference between the Abra and Solosis lines - both psychic types who evolve via trade finally, but one is a frail speedster and the other is a bulky defender. Is there enough difference between Timburr and Machop's lines to justify keeping both? Spearow/Rufflet/Taillow? Tauros/Bouffalant? Ducklett/Wingull?

World explanation might be handwaved away that some species went extinct or merged with others - maybe have new designs that incorporate the elements of any merged lines (Pidgey with a Starly head and Pidove coloring, perhaps?)

Part of the problem is that the Game Freak got into a mindset of "New Pokemon = better gameplay" way back in gen 3, went way overboard in gen5, and they were wrong and should move to fix it.

Mix up what's available and you'll make it fresh and fun. In some ways, for example, I enjoyed White 2 more than White because it let you catch and use Pokemon that you'd never had relevant at low/medium levels before - I'd NEVER used a Riolu AS A RIOLU or a Growlithe AS A GROWLITHE, for example, and the Growlithe was a lot more fun than some red monkey with a flaming poo on its head.

I can't say "Don't design new Pokemon", because I'm still hoping for a Dark-Psychic-Fighting trio of starters, and there are certainly design spaces for new pocket monsters. Just... I want them to look at the ones they have first.

And how would you feel if one of the Pokemon you liked, such as Starly, were to have been "culled"?

Still think culling is a good idea? I know I don't.