There's an argument to be made though that Pokemon as a franchise has never had the pressure - or even the ability to innovate and cultivate ambition, quite like EA Sports / 2K / The Sims etc. (I believe one can add many mobile franchises into this list too).It is disappointing to see Pokemon continue down it's descending trajectory ambition and, arguably, quality-wise. Especially when you compare it to how other Nintendo series with different leadership continue to evolve themselves. Prior to quarantine, I wasn't planning on even getting these games, and until I see them sort of break the mold and really bring the series into what feels like a contemporary place, I think I'm going to keep my distance.
1. Pokemon dominated its genre from the very start, much like how EA Sports practically monopolized NFL via Madden and soccer via FIFA. Digimon's the only competitor most can even name.
2. The ready-made audience Pokemon has generally does not mind spending $60 on a new Pokemon game every 2-3 years, because really, that's not a lot of money per 12+ months. That does discourage innovation - "why would we needlessly innovate when we have a steady source of money?". The same logic goes for EA Sports' games - its audience generally doesn't mind shelling out $60 yearly because it's a rather small price... even if the changes between releases are even smaller there. And microtransactions don't appear to be much at first glance, $5 here, $1 there... (which can easily spiral).
[EDIT: One can argue that there's a major reason why Mario / Zelda innovates beyond Miyamoto et al's reasons, and that's because they are often built with the consoles and showing off what one can do with the consoles in mind. This has generally not been the case for Pokemon, not to the same extent.]
3. The Pokemon games have historically focused on pick-up-and-play as well as being on handhelds. That doesn't leave as much room for a RPG to experiment between gens. Likewise, EA Sports' games have historically focused around making the connection to real sports that are easily grasped for say the 8 year old kid who's about to buy the first FIFA / Pokemon / whatever of his / her life.
Collorary: The mechanics introduced in battles and other places are generally interesting ideas... but it feels as if TPC / Game Freaks' spinning in place since Mega Evolutions / Z Moves / Dynamaxing occupy much of the same space. I'd argue that that shows there's a willingness within Game Freak to experiment... it's just that they appear to be stuck in the mud. As in "We need a new battle mechanic to help distinguish this upcoming gen, but we also need it to be flashy and awe-inspiring". Especially if TPC / GF indeed work on a "Time Table" of sorts.
But hey, I do believe that there is quite a lot one can do (The Alolan games showed that one could change the game's structure, I wish that they'd changed that again for SwSh). And, why not expand the interactivity between Trainer and Pokemon? Pokemon games like SwSh have made noble attempts here, so lets take that further:
genshin impact good pic.twitter.com/EaKtfHGpMr
— Tate (@oldentot) September 28, 2020
I dunno why (must've been my mind drifting hardcore), but that reminded me of the time a discussion about Pac Man's pellets (his side B) derailed into the time someone OD'd on Flintstone Gummies as a kid:Someone pointed out to me once that Amiibo Theory is basically the end result of teachers telling you to show all your work when you can just do it in your head. When you think about it, they have a point.
Last edited: