Thoughts on Pokemon
Little bit of back story before I get into it: So if you follow me on twitter (twitter.com/Zephean), Tumblr (zephean.tumblr.com), Facebook, or any other social network I could plug here so you will follow me, you’ll know that I’ve recently bought a Nintendo 3DS along with Ocarina of Time and Pokemon White. I played a bit of OoT, and then put it down and picked up Pokemon. I haven’t played any pokemon game in a while (completely skipped generation 4 and barely remember 3) so it really was a pleasant experience to see the graphics revamped, the touchscreen, and much more polished mechanics and a better tuned metagame.
Due to my recent obsession with Pokemon combined with being in school for game design, it’s only natural to think about the game from a designer perspective and I’ve thought about many concepts and I’ve come to some conclusions. I’ve discussed some of these on twitter, talking about random encounters and a few other game designy things and mechanics.
Anyways, getting to what this post is about:
This may be unsaid common sense to some, but I think it’s worth mentioning and thinking about out-loud because of how powerful this mechanic can be, and how great of an example Pokemon is for this. There’s a main mechanic that I’ve observed going on behind the scenes in Pokemon, which is besides the obvious battling/leveling/badges/puzzles/etc.
To the set up my observations, let me start by saying this: All pokemon are either “cute” or “cool” or “badass“. Very few, if any, do not fit into these categories, and that’s important because who wants to play with a dumb looking creature? In addition, most evolutionary chains move from “cute” to “cool“/”badass” as it progresses. I was actually having a discussion with a friend of mine about why a pokemon can’t stay cute forever, and I think I may have an idea now.
My choice for my starter was Oshawott (see picture at the top). My reason behind picking it was because it was freaking cute (again, see picture at the top). When you pick your starter, all you are given is a picture of the pokemon and what type of pokemon it is (every generation gives you a choice between Grass, Water, or Fire. — Fire > Grass > Water > Fire, etc. Essentially choosing rock, paper, or scissors), so from the get go, the game designers are trying to get you to decide which pokemon you connect with most, which one you think is cuter, which element you like the best, or whatever. So, you now have your first pokemon. Now fast forward a few introductory battles with your new buddy, and now they’ve gone up a level! Your pal is already starting to grow up! And then you begin your quest.
So you start catching a few pokemon, start training with your new friends, and suddenly, your adorable friend is evolving into a new pokemon! It looks similar, but less “cute“, and more “cool“. Because of how powerful you’ve made them, they’ve grown up. However, they’re not your “adorable little baby” anymore: they’ve matured, they’re stronger.
Sound similar to being a parent?
Something that should be noted is that the player is never forced to keep their starter pokemon in their party for any amount of time. As long as you have at least one pokemon other than your starter, you’re able to deposit your starter pokemon in your PC (your “pokemon bank”). But why is it that the vast majority of players keep their starter in their party from the beginning of the game until the very end?
The idea of a growing attachment between you and your pokemon is an everpresent idea in the game. Because pokemon never “die” (and this is more important than you may think), they are -constantly- with you. And that’s why your starter pokemon is such a big choice: It’s your first. That pokemon stays with you for your entire journey. If you think about your pokedex and overall game experience as a tree, every pokemon you encounter or catch, every badge you get, every trainer you meet and battle, has it’s roots with your first pokemon. Obviously, it would have been impossible to start the game without it.
So what I’m getting at is that the game creates a Father/Mother to Son/Daughter connection. I believe that people treat their starter pokemon as their kid, and there’s a less strong, but still present connection with other pokemon. The longer a pokemon stays in your party, the more emotionally connected you feel to them. That’s why some of your first six pokemon stay in your party for a little while. Personally, it’s really easy to not worry about a pokemon that went straight to my PC because my party was full. And having a pokemon evolve has a lot to do with forming this connection.
Speaking about a specific personal experience, during the time my pokemon party was in the level-30 range, I didn’t feel like I was accomplishing much if all I did was level someone two levels. However, when they evolved, I felt I had accomplished a huge task, and I felt very close to that pokemon. In addition, I would try to not put pokemon that didn’t evolve or pokemon that were already at their fully evolved state in my party. Tell me to deposit an Emolga in my bank, who doesn’t evolve at all, and that’s fine by me. But tell me to deposit my Samurott that I’ve seen evolve twice and I’ve grown from a level 5 Oshawott or my Chandelure that has been there for me since it was an adorable Litwick and I’ll honestly cringe.
Expanding on this concept a little: I’ve noticed that other people, as well as myself, tend to like triple evolutions better than double evolutions in their party.
So does that mean you are more emotionally attached to having a Machop, that turned into a Machoke, then a Machamp or a Litwick, Lampert, Chandelure; than a Farfetch’d or Audino, who don’t evolve at all?
I believe so, because with the first two examples, you are able to visually witness your child grow up into something amazing. And with that, I believe this concept is one of, if not the main mechanic that makes this series so successful with it’s fans, in addition to the huge community of fellow players.
In summary: An emotional connection, if used properly, is one of the most powerful game design mechanics we can utilize.
Interesting. I think the series relies heavily on the player gaining some kind of emotional attachment, especially since I’ve lost what used to draw me into the game. I loved the game because I played as a kid who was my age but he could go travel the world with awesome pets and have awesome adventures! Growing older, that age attachment and dreamy wonderland have slightly fallen from my mind so I feel less enjoyment from the games other than a trip back into nostalgic memories.
P.S. Tangela does evolve (4th Generation) > Tangrowth
Right. I mean, as we get older, another thing to consider is that we get interested in competative play and metagame, almost automatically. And speaking from a metagame perspective, most starter pokemon are not that great when compared to pokemon that become available in the end-game. However I think by that time, most people feel emotionally connected with their starters, even at our age. And even when red and blue first game out, it was still obvious to us that certain pokemon were “good” and some are “bad”. For example, I was able to understand the concept that Dragonite was a hell of a lot better than Pidgeot. And now we have communities like Smogon that seem to only be about the metagame. I’m not against it, it’s a new view on the game, but I think what made the game what it is today was the emotional connection and less worrying about math and theorycraft.
And whoops, haha. Lemme change my example then.
Thanks.
You’ve hit upon the core of the franchise’s success here. It’s something I was considering trying to build a thesis out of, but I couldn’t quite make it work. Pokemon was only a part of that, but I wanted to look at Attachment Theory in games, which pokemon plays into in a major way. It gets better when you look at Pokemon and start looking for how it’s similar and different to, say… the dog in Fable 2 and 3, hunter and warlock pets in WoW (and similar MMO stuff), bridge crew in STO, and so on. But I digress.
The attachment and relationship of player to pokemon is a huge part of the franchise, responsible for a LOT of the sales, and i think Ninetendo and Game Freak are enormously aware of it. Just look at a lot of the language in the text of the game. Most obvious is anytime someone in the story talks about the relationship between pokemon and humans, but it’s a bit deeper than that. I haven’t traded a pokemon in Black and White, but try it. In Diamond/Pearl, when you get a pokemon from another player, the message says “X has arrived! …Take good care of it!” I mean… think about that. That’s a really deliberate choice of wording, and pretty much designed to try and instantly bond you to someone else’s pokemon by inferring that there’s a responsibility and suggesting the previous owner might actually care that you take care of their ex-pokemon.
There’s loads of instances scattered around the game, and it’s really quite feindishly clever. Consider: Why do the pokemon stat cards have personality listed and such? It really doesn’t have a large game impact, but it’s there anyway. Knowing details forms attachments.
What I find most interesting is how easily it transfers into a new, blank game, even if you don’t import anything off a previous generation. I played Pokemon Colosseum years ago, and that game starts you with an umbreon and an espeon. I ended up having a lot of fun with that game, and those two in particular really just kicked all kinds of butt for me. Every game since, I get obsessed with somehow getting my hands on a pair of evees so I can get my mitts on a espeon and umbreon pair and I don’t feel like I’m really into the game until I have. Because it all slides back to one of the previous games that’s like 7+ years and multiple pokemon generations old. Same’s true of my Rapidash from Diamond/Pearl, actually.