My Problem with Pokemon

[Dr.Henry_Killinger]

kekrot said:

JWeinCom said:
I really don't get what this is trying to say.

Agree. 

 

JWeinCom said:
Most of what you mentioned is simply good game design that encourages people to play the game.

Also agree. Almost every game existing encourages you to play it. Pokémon is no different in that regard. 

You need to read the OP completely, because this is a very complicated topic that cannot be understood by simply skim over it.

The fact of the matter is that

1. this is not an evaluation of the quality of the game design, only an observation that the priorty in the entire pokemon franchise is to sell merchandise. The best analog would be skylanders, which sells itself as a game but also prioritizes the merchandise it sells. This is entirely different from Zelda which prioritize the gameplay and the story over merchandise. This doesn't mean it zelda themed merchandise isn't sold because of it, but that the priority in its development is secondary to gameplay and story.

2. The excuse "Almost every game exists to encourages to play it, means nothing with regard to my observation." If their was a pokemon RPG with realtime battle, would it not also encourage you to play it? That line of reasoning means nothing in considering why this is not the case now. 

3. As I have outlined in the various examples I give, even the spinoffs which deviate from the base formula still prioritize the selling of merchandise to the extent that other aspects of the game are simply not as important or even forgoed completely as in the case of PokePark, Rumble, and Snap. 

4. There is no reason for something like this:

 

to exist as a spin off and not have free movement with 4 moves mapped to buttons in an rpg setting on a home console, at least not if the reason is to sell the game.