The Pokemon series is adored by many players around the world. Ever since Red and Blue asked us to pick between squirtle, bulbasaur, and charmander on the Game Boy in 1996 the pocket monsters have drawn countless fans. But with around 20 or so entries in the mainline series, and with some previous titles sparking heated debate, fans are beginning to ask questions and to consider what it would take to make them reconsider their commitment.
One fan posed it succinctly: 'What would it take for a Pokemon game to be objectively bad?' They then proceeded to reel off a list of titles that have tanked the reputations of video games series. "Sonic 2006. Modern Madden. Fallout 76. Mighty No. 9. Mass Effect: Andromeda. Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite", they wrote.
"Names that strike fear in the hearts of gaming developers. No one wants a game to end up like disasters", they continued, before summarising their question: "What would it take for a Pokemon game to be objectively bad? Something so bad that it's a byword for failure and it's barely playable or enjoyable. And would its complete collapse force Gamefreak/The Pokémon Company to change?"
Of course "objectively bad" could be a loaded term in itself. For instance, there was a huge debate sparked by Pokemon Legends: Arceus over its graphics. On the one side many thought Game Freak could've done more instead of having the visuals appear so janky while on the other side many defended the developer on the grounds that graphics don't matter (to simplify the whole affair).
But Arceus' sub-par visuals didn't seem to dent its sales and as we move into Gen 9 with Pokemon Scarlet & Violet due to launch later this year, the question posed above has ignited fans' interest in how the games have evolved and will continue to evolve.
"The main series formula is so simple yet effective, that just following it to the T is a guaranteed success. Therefore, the only way for a main series game to hit Sonic 06 levels of bad is for it to be so glitchy that it's literally unplayable", argued one nousername191.
But a ClownPrinceofLime pushed back: "I think that's part of Pokemon's problem. The formula means that any Pokemon game that comes out and follows that will always be good enough. But 9 generations in, if they just follow that formula they'll only ever be good enough."
A SwissyVictory asserted that even a bad Pokemon game is a good game and that the developers would have to seriously mess up in order to ruin it for the majority of players. They then proceeded to list the conditions for such ruination:
- Forced Nuzlocks would ruin a lot of people's experiances.
- Making the game overly grindy where even the best players can't get through a gym without grinding for a few hours beforehand.
- Uninspired new Pokemon and/or only adding the Pokemon people don't like.
- An extremely long and confusing cave that you have to memorize to get through. Bonus if it's full of annoying Pokemon that don't let you run away and use moves like self destruct. This stacks well with the forced Nuzlock.
- A cutscene where your starter gets cancer and you have to put it down.
- All the charecters are extremely annoying. Imagine everyone is as bad as Hop and the Royal Twins.
Another commentator added that perhaps microtransactions would make a Pokemon game objectively bad, if players needed real money to buy either 'mons or Pokeballs. Now that would be crappy.
The question certainly made for an interesting and lively discussion, and you can read the full thread here. In other Pokemon debates, fans discussed what features would make or break Scarlet & Violet for them.