Poll: Pokemon is actually strategy and not an RPG ?

[SantoUno]

Pokemon has obviously always been considered an RPG, but when you consider the core gameplay it is actually more appropiately a strategy game. Why? Because in reality the only RPG aspect of the game is raising your Pokemons' levels to evolve, learn new moves, and EV training to specialize them towards a certain stat. And you should realize that this comes to an end once you hit level 100. Or more importantly, those who battle others in Diamond/Pearl/Platinum like to level the playing field by forcing all the Pokemons' levels to 50 or 100. So in this case it is purely strategy due to the fact that you must decide which Pokemon to have in your team, what their moveset is, what order you will use them, and how will you respond to your opponent's moves. Of course Pokemon can be considered an RPG, but I see it as more of a strategy game with an RPG core gameplay mechanic.

So what do you consider Pokemon to be?

 

[grimsprice]

Who cares what its classified as? Anyone who has played it either thinks its awesome or not.

Reclassifying it won't make all the strategy nerds go "oh my god! pokemon is awesome now!".

 

[Shenanigans176]

This is a very interesting point. To be honest, I never really thought of Pokemon in conventional gaming sense, mostly because I was so young when I started playing and didn't really know too much about these things. But if I were to look back, I would agree with you and say that it is more strategy than it is RPG. There are very few moves that will allow you to deviate from the single storyline, which I consider to be one of the main components of and RPG. I also would say that the story is second to the battles with other trainers, another component of an RPG that if Pokemon were to be considered one, it should be more prominent. An interesting topic.

 

[GoldenCondor]

It's neither. The genre is "Monster Trainer".

 

[DeadlyYellow]

So? All genre classified RPGs require strategy.

Sure you can just try to muscle over every enemy you come across, but it's usually quicker and more efficient if you work to exploit their weaknesses.

 

[cambodiancam]

I'd have to say it's none of the above it's more of a multi genre game.

 

[Souplex]

Pokemon isn't a game as no fun is involved. In order to be a strategy, thinking must be involved. It is however, an RPG.

 

[-Seraph-]

By that definition all RPG's are "strategy RPGs". Perhaps your argument holds up somewhat in the multiplayer aspect of the game but barely. No Pokemon is a simple Turn based RPG game, it does not contain the traits that actually encompass a real tactical RPG.

tactical RPG's encompass games like Ogre battle, Final Fantast Tactics, Fire Emblem and the likes. THOSE are tactical RPG's.

The battles in pokemon are no different than other RPG's, battles in pokemon can be no more strategic than a battle in Persona, Final Fantasy, or any other turn based RPG.

 

[LogicNProportion]

The genre for Pokemon is "Pokemon".

It's definitely not strategy, though, because of the fact that there is very little strategy invoeld except for remember things like "Blue beats Red, etc", "What attack does most damage or hits most often?", and "How does I catch Snorlax?"

If I recall, almost every Pokemon game tells you at the beginning at the Tutorial House, about how you should not make a Pokemon's moce roster only offensive techniques. I lol'd. What a load of bull that is!

In other words, you will never lose as long as you get the Turn Advantage, Type Adventage, and FIRIN MAH LAZER Advantage.

 

[j0frenzy]

I have been thinking about this recently. Namely in what makes an RPG an RPG and whether we have mislabeled over time what is and is not a role playing game. I think tactical game my be a better fit for Pokemon. However, it really does not matter what genre we place it in. There is not a person in the world who really needs to know what Pokemon is. It is Pokemon.
In short: I have too much free time and need to be studying for finals.

 

[blood77]

Who cares what its classified as? Anyone who has played it either thinks its awesome or not.

Reclassifying it won't make all the strategy nerds go "oh my god! pokemon is awesome now!".

Agreed, this is rather silly.

 

[Loop Stricken]

So what do you consider Pokemon to be?

Awesome.

 

[Carlston]

Pokemon has obviously always been considered an RPG, but when you consider the core gameplay it is actually more appropiately a strategy game. Why? Because in reality the only RPG aspect of the game is raising your Pokemons' levels to evolve, learn new moves, and EV training to specialize them towards a certain stat. And you should realize that this comes to an end once you hit level 100. Or more importantly, those who battle others in Diamond/Pearl/Platinum like to level the playing field by forcing all the Pokemons' levels to 50 or 100. So in this case it is purely strategy due to the fact that you must decide which Pokemon to have in your team, what their moveset is, what order you will use them, and how will you respond to your opponent's moves. Of course Pokemon can be considered an RPG, but I see it as more of a strategy game with an RPG core gameplay mechanic.

So what do you consider Pokemon to be?

Pokemom is a rpg like pacman was a rpg, the vauge moron idea of anytime you play a game you take a role. There is no role, no morale choices, no consquence of your action, it's a connect the dot game like NES Dragon warrior. You don't have a choice, you will take X mission and finish it and you can't explore anything till 99 percent of the game is done.

It's just a raising critter sim, and it does have tactics...but certainly no role playing.

 

[Gildan Bladeborn]

Correct answer: Not something that interests me in any way. But seriously, it's neither of those two genres.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Once Pokemon are a certain level stronger than their opponents, they can disregard type. That's a trait of strategic RPGs, the idea that level can ever be superior to inherent strengths/weaknesses. In fact, you can ignore type even when your Pokemon is the same level as the opponent, if you know how to play it. Like pitting a high ATK Poke against a low DEF one. Blastoise/Poliwrath might be weak against Pikachu, but that doesn't mean Blastoise won't win.

All RPGs have some strategy to them, but Pokemon is more RPG than straight-up strategic game. It's more about getting a balanced team with diverse and powerful moves than about always attacking your opponent's weak points. Type advantage is nice, but hardly essential.

But anyway, Pokemon is rather unique. It'd be better to class it as a monster raising game and leave it there.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Once Pokemon are a certain level stronger than their opponents, they can disregard type. That's a trait of strategic RPGs, the idea that level can ever be superior to inherent strengths/weaknesses. In fact, you can ignore type even when your Pokemon is the same level as the opponent, if you know how to play it. Like pitting a high ATK Poke against a low DEF one. Blastoise/Poliwrath might be weak against Pikachu, but that doesn't mean Blastoise won't win.

Sort of.

A lv100 Pikachu with a full set of Electric-based abilities won't beat a lv1 Onix.

... Struggle notwithstanding anyway.

 

[Samurai Goomba]

Once Pokemon are a certain level stronger than their opponents, they can disregard type. That's a trait of strategic RPGs, the idea that level can ever be superior to inherent strengths/weaknesses. In fact, you can ignore type even when your Pokemon is the same level as the opponent, if you know how to play it. Like pitting a high ATK Poke against a low DEF one. Blastoise/Poliwrath might be weak against Pikachu, but that doesn't mean Blastoise won't win.

Sort of.

A lv100 Pikachu with a full set of Electric-based abilities won't beat a lv1 Onix.

... Struggle notwithstanding anyway.

Well, there's lack of strategy and then there's just being a moron.

Lv. 100 anything will kill Lv. 1 anything as long as the Lv. 100 Pokemon isn't using ONLY moves that the Lv. 1 is immune to.

You sure were reaching for that example, though.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Once Pokemon are a certain level stronger than their opponents, they can disregard type. That's a trait of strategic RPGs, the idea that level can ever be superior to inherent strengths/weaknesses. In fact, you can ignore type even when your Pokemon is the same level as the opponent, if you know how to play it. Like pitting a high ATK Poke against a low DEF one. Blastoise/Poliwrath might be weak against Pikachu, but that doesn't mean Blastoise won't win.

Sort of.

A lv100 Pikachu with a full set of Electric-based abilities won't beat a lv1 Onix.

... Struggle notwithstanding anyway.

Well, there's lack of strategy and then there's just being a moron.

Lv. 100 anything will kill Lv. 1 anything as long as the Lv. 100 Pokemon isn't using ONLY moves that the Lv. 1 is immune to.

You sure were reaching for that example, though.

Yes, but then again that was the point; presenting an outlandish scenario to provide an antithesis.

Although, thinking about it, I'll bet people actually do use single-type movesets.
Foolish people but nonetheless.

 

[Twad]

I would say strategy.. with stuff that may look like RPG bits tacked on it. I mean; its linear to hell, so your choices are only about your team composition, the rest of the time is spent grinding.

 

[koeniginator]

If that was the case, then all RPGs would also be strategy.
It requires thinking ahead in all RPGs.
Tell me one RPG were you can go meander about mindlessly and beat the game easily.