What is it that makes Pokemon addictive? Any takers?

Replayabilty, multiplayer and Marketing
Lots of marketing.

No no no. It was much more than advertising. The original game successfully touched upon many of the best aspects in RPGs.

I once read an article on the topic and the article suggested that the reason Pokemon became such a success was due to the combination of collecting visually appealing characters and then leveling them up. The players becomes attached to the game as they watch their hard work pay off. I can personally vouch that collecting a limited supply of items in an RPG can be a real blast. I remember in FF8 I spent hours beating bonus bosses just to collect every in-game trading card. Same idea applies to Pokemon.

I also believe the idea of battling your friends worked wonders. Oh, and you cannot forget that it was one of the best games for a portable system at the time. That had to play a part in its success.

They sort of ruined it though with the card game and television show... What was once a well-designed game became a fad. Fads destroy any hope of a good sequel.

Quote:

Original post by skittleo They sort of ruined it though with the card game and television show... What was once a well-designed game became a fad. Fads destroy any hope of a good sequel.

They created the game because Pokemon the show was a fad at the time, iirc. The game wouldn't have been as successful if it wasn't, imo.

The quality of a sequel isn't related to the original's appeal ... a quality sequel is a quality sequel. Personally, I try not to get caught up on the hype bandwagon, and just form my own opinion when the game's released.

:stylin: "Make games, not war."

It's that slogan: "Gotta Catch'em All!". It leaves you no choice. So:
++marketing.

shmoove

Quote:

They created the game because Pokemon the show was a fad at the time, iirc. The game wouldn't have been as successful if it wasn't, imo.

Other way around. The game became popular, so they based a show on it. Then toys, then movies, etc. As far as the sequels go, I think they actually did quite a good job.

skittleo touched on a bunch of good points, I'll add to it the fact that the game appealed very well to it's target demographic. Not only were the game mechanics extremely easy for kids to get into (one pokemon at a time, very limited options), but the storyline was also easy for them to relate to. What child couldn't find some fantasy to live out in the world of pokemon? They could journey the world, researching fascinating creatures. They could compete to become famed combatants. They could raise and breed intelligent and loving companions. They could even just use pokemon to augment their daily lives. It was a whole world which was perfect for kids to jump into, no matter what sort of dreams, personality, or background they had.

Perhaps the best thing about the game itself was that you always had something new to do. You were always heading to the next town, always preparing for the next gym battle, always looking for that stronger or more rare pokemon. It's a staple of all great games; that you never have to sit and say "Gee, what should I be doing next?", or "Man, I'm tired of this area" because you always have a definate goal to strive for and you're always going somewhere new to pursue it.

Marketing is a very good way to make people know about games, but does not mean the games themselves are any good.

What I see in pokemon that makes it addictive I would say the same thing as skittleo. But put emphasis on the loveable characters and creatures, and of course, the anime.

The same question could be asked to the Diablo series, why after all these years, it is still fun and addicting? I think this is a much more serious question, actually, As I have no answer to it myself...

The reason it's popular is because it works on basic principles when competing with other players (or indeed, game NPCS as in the game version). Water Beats Earth, Earth beats electric etc. basic principles that even small children can grasp. Apply these principles to a cutesy little creature and you've got a winner.

It's Magic: The Gathering for the masses. It's rock, paper, scissors in its highest form

Gotta catch'em all...
Gotta catch'em all...
Gotta catch'em all...
Can't sleep, clowns will eat me...
Can't sleep, clowns will eat me...
Can't sleep, clowns will eat me...

Another great thing about the pokemon games was that you could usually catch your "enemies". This adds a new dimension to the monster battles

In typical RPGs battling generally only serves to give you some XP, some money and perhaps an item or two. These are nice, but sometimes battles may seem more annoying than useful.

However, in battles where you can potentially win over the monster you are fighting, the player is constantly looking out for rare or valuable monsters and when "battling to capture" they have to use different tactics than when "battling to win".

This means that alot of "reduce defence" and status afflicting attacks have use when trying to capture opponents that normally arn't all that good in battles.


Some other games that work similar to this are like Final Fantasy Tactics where you can have "Mediator" that invites enemies to join your party. I liked this because then you can bring monsters to your side, have them reproduce and then "hunt" them to get special items.

Also, there is a game called Dragon Warrior Monsters (I have it on Game Boy) and it works similar to Pokemon but it features randomly generated levels and instead of having the monsters "evolve" by leveling up then you breed two monsters together to get one new one.

For example if you breed a basic "material type" monster with a "zombie type" you can get a Rouge Knight which is pretty cool. You lose the two parents but gain a more powerful monster. You can then breed the Rouge Knight with a "Demon type" to get a Dark Knight and so on.

That system was pretty cool, but the game wasn't nearly as sucessful as Pokemon was.