I am ashamed to admit it, but I've never beaten a single Pokemon RPG. The only Pokemon related game I ever finished was the baffling Pokemon snap, which somehow was more entertaining than it had any right to be. I have however put a lot of hours into various RPG's, most notably Blue, Yellow, Gold, Diamond, and just last year I tried to push myself to beat one and got about 50% into Black.

In most cases I've gotten anywhere from 25 to 75 percent through these games. Yet I always find myself stalling out and stopping. For the longest time, I thought it was just JRPG fatigue, until I discovered my ability to play tons of those games, even longer ones, without a problem. After further thinking on it, I've realized what my problem is with these games, why I have a hard time finishing them, and ultimately something I think/hope the developers address going forward in this franchise.

I believe a big problem with these games is the narrative structure and concept to how they work. While ultimately there are different stories to be had, a lot of unique and interesting characters in different versions, what you end up doing...is nearly identical in every game. You are a young Pokemon trainer on the rise, you pick a starter Pokemon rom a selection, someone gives you a Pokedex or equivalent. You have a rival. You need to collect all the Badges from the trainers on the way to the Pokemon League or equivalent. Always. In every game, your doing the same damn loop.

The next big Pokemon on the Switch, not the new ones that are coming need to flip this formula or this set up on it's head. I don't care make it a Pokemon school like Harry Potter where I go through the years and learn about different aspects to raising, or whatever. Just something different. It's a big aspect of this series that I feel has been waning. And interestingly enough it's something that Nintendo as a Publisher recently went through until the radical changes to Legend of Zelda.

What do you think, do you agree with me that the loop to these games has worn dry?

They've shown that they aren't afraid to try new things when they removed gym leaders in favor of trial challenges, so maybe someday they'll do something more extreme. The problem is that there is a rather large group of fans who like the status quo and there is little incentive to change because their primary goal is to bring in young kids who wouldn't know that the new generation is the same old formula anyway.

This game series seems like a joke to me, even if I think in general I think it does a lot of good things and will be playing lets go whatever version with my girlfriend this fall and probably buying the switch game for her/me/us. I absolutely don't think it's bad in a per game basis but overall throughout the years I have issues with pokemon. Maybe you can compare it to fighting games where the majority of money and balancing goes into the characters and in this case pokemon, but I wish there was something more I could sink into whenever I've tried one.

Best to always remember that Pokemon is for children.

Adults are free to enjoy but it seems weird to make demands.

@efesell: I'm not really earnestly making demands. It's also more specific to the games themselves, not necessarily the tone of the game. I'm fine if it continues to remain targeted at a younger audience, that doesn't justify the actual games themselves being nearly at EA's Sports games in terms of taking the exact same gameplay loop and structure, and just putting new Pokemon in them.

Again look at Zelda. For years people who had played Zelda were asking to see it being refreshed, a new approach to the game, and thus Breath of the Wild became a thing. I don't think it's that "demanding" to simply argue that some games get too stuck in the repetitive loop, especially since historically speaking when it comes to big game development this sort of thing has happened to a lot of franchises.

After playing the games since Red and Blue, I cashed out around the fourth generation with HeartGold upon the following realizations:

• You'll never be the very best that no one ever was.
• Catching them isn't much of a test (because of the RNG in the catch rate formula), and training more than a team of cause (since you just need a well-rounded team of five and an HM slave).
• The only way to catch them all reliably is to have every version of the game with two GameBoys or DS's.
• And Ash has been 10-years-old for the past 20 years.

I can go back to some of the older games for nostalgia, but a Breath of the Wild-esque change to the franchise, or just Smash Bros Ultimate that shit and put every Pokemon and region into one game. Either of those options would get me back in since the possibility/curiosity of me playing the games competitively isn't strong enough, along with me not being willing to remember what Pokemon came out after gen three.

It's a different Ash in each timeline.

Pokemon is a entry-level series for beginners in the rpg genre. The repetition between games is because the franchise is not designed for same player to play more than one or two generations.

As for the narrative, it does not differ so much from other sagas focused on the gameplay. For stroy-driven rpgs look to FF.

They’re all built on a design doc from 1994 with a few more pages stapled at the end. Hopefully the one on switch comes up with some ambitious new ideas because the gameplay in these games has been stalling for 10+ years now.

Pokemon has probably the most depth of any rpg out there right now. It's problem (if you could call it a problem) is that none of that depth is even necessary to beat the game or even just play it normally.

I have little doubt that a lot more adult fans would enjoy pokemon if these mechanics were made more obvious from the start and no relegated to background details and the competitive scene. Things like IVs, EVS, Hidden Abilities, egg moves, natures etc and a ton of depth to these games. You never need to know any of these mechanics though, which is why most people bounce off.

Ultimately I feel these are games for children and they shouldn't overcomplicate things unnecessarily, but I feel like a lot of adults don't know these hidden mechanics exist and their enjoyment might increase considerably if they did.

Did you play the most recent games? I've stuck with the series since the first generation and, while I still enjoy them all, I definitely felt some of the fatigue you're getting at. It's notable that my favourite things about entries past early gens were the narratives - I loved Black & White's story aspects, but I bounced off X & Y's a lot faster. However, Sun & Moon are the most different the series has felt structurally since its inception - you still have major "tests" but you arent' going from town to town and collecting eight badges, and the Pokémon League doesn't even exist in Alola initially but is being built as your journey progresses. It's a lot more story-driven, with the narrative being the main drive for you to go from place to place (whereas in pretty much every game prior your goal was always finding that next gym, and the story sequences just kind of popped up around that every so often). It really felt like a breath of fresh air to me and ended up being one of my favourites.

To speak to Aroe's point about the mechanical depth, I actually appreciate their design there. There's so much nuance to building up a perfect team and breeding ideal Pokémon for competition, but I love that none of that is required for the main game. In past years I've meticulously sought out that depth and spent hours perfecting my IVs (and had a fantastic time doing so)… but these days I don't have as much time to invest and so the past few entries I've just caught one of each Pokémon I encounter and then levelled up the ones I liked most aesthetically. I definitely play in a more tactical way than I did as a very young child, but I enjoy & appreciate that I can see all the game's content without having to invest time into the breeding and EV training aspects if I want to.

At first i thought pokemon was for kids but then i learned about EV. My world changed.

I know there is a lot of hidden depth to the existing system, but I would love to see a completely new battle system. I've always thought it could be something like a grid based 1 on 1 tactical battling system that sought to replicate the way Pokemon fights work in the show (or at least how I remember them working), where there is more of an element of positioning and dodging. Honestly, I would be happy with any new take on battles, because it just feels like the part of the games that has seen the fewest updates in the 20+ year history of the series.

I do think that if they brought the hidden systems at play in Pokemon to the forefront more people would enjoy it. They've made some strides to improve visibility of those features but they feel too tucked away from the main parts of the game.

There's no tutorial explaining IVs or EVs or nature, or hidden abilities or anything of it really, and it's a shame. These systems are actually really fun to play with and add a ton of complexity and strategy to battles that the main campaign never takes advantage of. I'd hate to see them throw that complexity away in favor of chasing a trend.

The Pokemon I usually go to to try and explain how much depth there is in the series is Scizor, the generation 2 Bug/Steel type. Scizor has an ability called Technician, which boosts the power of moves under 60 base power by 50%. That seems kinda cool but what the point? Well several moves in the game have under 60 Base Power but have other effects. The go-to move on Scizor is a move called Bullet Punch, which has 40 Base power but always goes first. This move on Scizor hits for 90 Base power with the bonus for being Steel type. Scizor is a monster with this attack.

I feel like if you made more effort to explain IVs and EVs more people would be able to then go 'What the hell is all this bullshit'.

Which might still work out, I guess.

@efesell: Agreed. Even after looking at the bulbodeia or whatever the branded wiki, I still don't completely understand either.