I promise that this is not a Pokemon-only blog. I actually write about things as diverse as games, movies, education policy, and literary theory (to mention a few topics). But because of Twitch Plays Pokemon and a few TPP inspired projects I'm working on (an academic analysis, a novella, a game inspired by the Helix saga), I've been pretty much invested in all things Pokemon. Today I want to do a post where I talk about Pokemon generational divide and how to address it.
I quit playing Pokemon games after Generation I. I played Pokemon Red and caught as many Pokemon as I could. My neighbor had Pokemon Blue and he did likewise. Then, we traded starter Pokemon via link-cables. After finishing the game, however, we both quit Pokemon. It was likewise with the anime - we watched about 30 episodes, got tired of Ash's poor training skills. By the time Generation II came around, we didn't care about it too much. Although we had fond memories of Generation I, we didn't hate the new generation on principle, we just didn't care. It was then with some surprise that, while reading about the Pokemon fan community in various forums, I found that there seems to be a lot of hate emanating from people who quit Pokemon after the first two or three generations and those who are new to Pokemon. The amount of hate has reached a level where the Pokemon community has adopted the term Genwunner from the Transformers community to demean those who only like Generations I and II, and in retaliation the fans of the first generations call the newer fans Newgenners.
In response to this debate, I figured I'd put out my own thoughts based on my own observations. I should note that because of my rekindled interest in Pokemon thanks to Twitch Plays Pokemon, I have since began playing every Pokemon game from the third generation on (I don't have an old Gameboy, so I couldn't play Crystal - but at least my DS runs Advanced games). Here are the facts:
As a game, Pokemon has not changed at all. From a story perspective, every single Pokemon game features a protagonist who sets out to become a Pokemon Master. From a gameplay perspective, every single game features exploration and a battle system where each Pokemon trainer pits up to six Pokemon against other trainers. Because of this, arguments like "I don't like the new Pokemon games because they are just repetitions of Gen I" (see video above) are, honestly, ridiculous. If a certain play mechanic is found to be as acceptable / good / fun engaging in a certain game, saying that it suddenly "sucks" in another game because it's the same is simply ridiculous. The game mechanics are largely unchanged, therefore, play-wise, there is no difference between any of the generations.
There is, however, a big difference when it comes to visuals and sound. There can be no question that because of technological advancements, newer Pokemon games always look and sound better than older ones. As far as visuals are concerned, Pokemon X / Y > Pokemon Black / White > Pokemon Diamond / Pearl > Pokemon Ruby / Saphire / LeafGreen / FireRed ? Pokemon Gold / Silver > Pokemon Red / Blue.
With all games standing on the same ground play-wise and with the newer games having better visuals and audio, why do some Pokemon fans complain about the newer generations anyway? They say it's because of the Pokemon. These complaints MAY be on to something. However, most of the comparisons made by people who complain about the new Pokemon are unfair in the sense that they compare the best Generation I Pokemon (Charizard, Blastoise, Venosaur, Dragonite, Garydos, Mewtwo) against ice-cream, gears, and trash-bag Pokemon. These comparisons, as I said, are unfair.
Author Unknown
In order to make a fair comparison, we should compare the Pokemon that play similar roles. Charizard vs. trash Pokemon is NOT, I repeat, NOT an equivalent comparison. Let us then take a look first at the starter Pokemon in each game up to Gen V (I still have not played X or Y, but I can't wait to get it). On the first generation, we have Bulbasaur, Charmander, and Squirtle. A reptile with a plant on its back, a flame salamander, and a turtle seem like awesome starter Pokemon. They have cool design and are visually appealing. I called my six year old son over (we have been watching the Pokemon series) and he said that he "loves Bulbasaur and Charmander and Squirtle". On the second generation we have Chikorita, Cyndaquill, and Totodile. I'm not sure what kind of plant animal Chikorita is, but it is pretty cool. My son says it's like a puppy plant. Cyndaquill is like a fire porcupine, and also has a pretty cool design (my son calls it "really fiery). And Totodile is a little crocodile. If you ask me, Totodile is the coolest looking one (my kid says he hates it because he hates alligators). All Gen 2 starters are clever and colorful. The reason why they look cool is because they look at the same time tough and cute and cool. They look like they can take a hit, do some damage, and serve as pets. This is something that two of the three Gen 3 starters fail to have. As far as concept, I think that Treecko and Torchick would work. However, to me, they don't look like Pokemon that can hold their own in battle. Mudkipz, however, does look like it can hold its own in a bttle against any of the Gen I and Gen II starter Pokemon (except Totodile, that one looks like it will wreck all other Pokemon). However, Mudkips has a ridiculous face. And what the hell is it anyway? We know that Treecko is a lizard of some sort while Torchick is a baby chick, but what the hell is Mudkipz? Still, because it's the only one that looks battle ready, it's fair to say that out of the 3rd Gen Pokemon, in the starter form, Mudkipz is the only remotely worthwhile one. My son, however, did like the Torchick because "it's a cutie lie Mew". The starters on Gen 4 are not only cool, but also feature the best grass-type design of all five generations. Yes, Turtwig (a turtle with a twig) is cooler than Bulbasaur (tho not cooler than Totodile). The fire monkey Chimchar is an interesting concept and has clever design. Although it looks like it's the third weakest Pokemon thus far (with Treecko and Torchick being the most pathetic looking), Chimchar looks like it has agility to make up for that setback. Meanwhile, Piplup looks like it could hold its own in battle, but it's a bit slow. However, it more than makes up for it on the pet-factor. The fifth generation seems to serve as the opposite of the third. Snivy looks like a good Pokemon with clever design - a mix of plant and animal, and Tepig looks like a tough little starter Pokemon. Oshawott I don't even know what it is that thing IS pretty bad. Is it supposed to be an otter or a clown-thing or what? Still, two out of three is not bad. So, as far as starters are concerned, based on their design, Gen 1, 2, and 4 come out on top, with 4 having the more variety, generation 5 has two solid choices, and Gen 3 comes in last with Mudkipz as a maybe halfway acceptable Pokemon.
Now, to base the worth of Pokemon design of full games based on starters only would be unfair. Let us then consider how other Pokemon stack up against other equivalents. I'll keep my comments short for this next section. Let's start by ranking the evolved starters as a set - because individually the horrible water thing from Gen 5 turns out to be the coolest water type, with Charizard and Torterra landing coolest fire and grass types. As groups, it seems to me that Gen 1 have the best design, with Gen 5 following close on its heels, then Gen 4, Gen 3, and Gen 2. Once again, the criteria used for this ranking was highly subjective non-scientific "cool" effect and battle-worthiness as far as DESIGN is concerned (not taking into consideration stats or anything). As far as the birds are concerned, Gen 3 wins top prize, with Gens 1, 4, and 2 following suit, and Gen 5 running in at last place. As far as the "useless" Pokemon are concerned, Gen 2 is the coolest looking one, with Gen 3 following close on its heels. Gen 1 and Gen 5 tie for 3rd / 4th place, and Gen 4's Bidooff... man that's just one ugly thing that Bidooff. As far as the Pikachu replacement is concerned, let''s face it, Pikachu is the face of Pokemon. Gen 1 wins. However, if we're honest about it, all generations have cleverly drawn Pokemon as far as the "token Pikachu" is concerned. The design of the legendaries, I think, rank in order of generation (from 1st to 5th), while the "pseudo legendaries" are all just about as cool, with the exception of Gen 3's Salamence which looks amazingly cool. As far as the Tiny Legendaries are concerned, to me, Mew is the best one (because it's super cool and can learn any attack etc), with the 4th generation coming in last and the other three gens in the middle.
Also, Zubat.
So, what do we get out of this? What we can derive, is that all generations have cool clever designs and all generations have crappy designs. If I had to select one Pokemon of each category I mentioned here, I would use Totodile (Gen 2) as the starter, Samurott (Gen 5, water) as the evolved starter, Swellow (Gen 3) as the bird, Furret (Gen 2) as the "useless" one, The Birds (Gen 1) as the Legendaries, Salamence (Gen 3) as the Pseudo Legendary, and Mew (Gen 1) as the little Legendary. This may appear as if I didn't like Gen 4 designs, but this is not the case. I really do. As I said, Torterra is my favorite grass type evolution, and all the others (except Bidooff) look cool. All Pokemon games have Pokemon whose designs inspire the imagination, from Mewtwo to Arceus, and Pokemon that make us go like "what were they thinking?"I mean, Koffig? Really?
And sure, maybe the cover Pokemon have shifted a bit from more animal-looking Pikachu and Blastoise in Gen I to more robot looking stuff like Zekrom, but who cares? The games are still as fun as they ever were. Now please, stop the fighting and enjoy each entry for what it is and not for what it's not.
No comments:
Post a Comment