Future Villains: Organization or Individual?

[Nicolas721]

I totally agree with most of your points, but

Can't a good story be made up of multiple characters developing? Or am I misunderstanding what you mean by single-character development?

I'm saying that while main rivals usually have family, they aren't affiliated to any organization, and most of the time it's just you vs he/she. An organization-less villain would end up having a similar dynamic to a rival's.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

Ohhhh, I see, thank you for explaining it to me!

 

[Matleo]

maybe for once not so many villians? but rather harder in-game rivals? could be quite appealing?

- more diffrent figures like we had "Paul" and others, with more focusing on types, moves and abilities of their pokemon for once?
we had in past so much human villians and pokemon were left behind in some cases, like shedinja.

- maybe an organization that is not evil but fights to take over the pokemon league for its own,
or even implement something like
"free all pokemon"

 

[PinkIceFox]

I personally prefer groups to a singular villain. It's a better pokemon experience for me to take on the mooks and work my way up to the big guys over the story's progression instead of dealing with one guy who I either never get to fight for real until the very end or am supposed to take seriously as a threat when I beat his team of pokemon every time I fight him.

Makes more sense for me for my first experience with these badguys being a grunt with a weaker team because he's a grunt.
With the singular villain we'd get a few possibilities:

-Get into battle you aren't supposed to win (your team gets curb stomped/battle is interrupted by someone stronger than you who's actually a threat to the badguy at the time) which would be frustrating for the player in a game where progression = win every battle.
-"Huehuehue I am the villain of this story. Watch as I poison this water and make all the pokemon sick and you can't do anything about it because it's a cutscene! *walks off screen before you can get to him*)
-"Hi I'm the most dangerous character in this story. Nice to meet you, kid with 1 gym badge. Allow us to do battle since you've come across me stealing some important documents from this random scientist studying the maguffin legendary. Don't worry though. I will use these pokemon that are low enough leveled that you can beat me to thwart this plan I so brilliantly concocted! But I will continue my schemes and you will thwart me at every turn since I work alone! But fear not for I *WILL* be the penultimate battle for this game's plot! FEAR ME!! NOT EVEN THE FINAL GYM LEADER CAN BEAT ME! But this kid with a fire squirrel, bird, rodent, bug, scallop, and plant life all under level 25 is gonna wreck my business."

 

[SinnohEevee]

I want a Pokemon villain.

 

[Drakon]

I want a Pokemon villain.

I definitely agree. After all, it's canon (at least in the anime) that pokémon can be malicious; the most extreme example being the Malamar in "A Conspiracy to Conquer".

But why not something that combines both the organization aspect and the pokémon villain aspect? It'd be the classic "battle the grunts and admins until you reach the team leader" aspect seen in the others but as you do so, you'll keep finding something...off with the people you've battled. Like they don't seem to act normally.

And at the end, when you're confronting the team leader, the team leader will reveal themselves to be a pokémon. Hell, it could be ultimate end when you've defeated all their pokémon and then they themselves will enter battle.

 

[colours]

As fun and interesting as the Team (name) here approach usually are, I feel that Game Freak ough to at least try writing a singular villain instead of a whole team. Although... there are certain issues that come out of writing just main individual as plot villain instead of a whole team:

• At what point do you encounter said villain? See, with typical evil teams, you encounter them somewhat early-mid game I think for most Pokemon games with the final battle being somewhere between the 7th and 8th gym or so. Do you just beat the main villain over and over until you beat him for the final time at that point?
• I have a concern that it might be.... boring. I think, if evil teams are done right (Team Skull are an example I'm going to use here), they can have quite a bit of character to them! If it's just one individual, unless the story focuses heavily on their development and what causes him to be the way they are, I can imagine players getting bored. It's... a bit difficult, I think. See, the way Pokemon games have traditionally worked is that there is buildup to the final match with the leader. Since you're already fighting the big bad anyway either at the middle of the game or at the end with an individual, that kind of buildup doesn't really exist. Basically: who are you going to battle in the meantime?

It's definitely possible for Game Freak to write in an individual villain, but I imagine that there would have to be major overhauls to the story in order to delve around said villain's past and development into the present in order to make them the slightest bit interesting and avoid making the plot boring or stale.

 

[ThreeThousandFish]

I definitely agree. After all, it's canon (at least in the anime) that pokémon can be malicious; the most extreme example being the Malamar in "A Conspiracy to Conquer".

At least in HeartGold & SoulSilver, Professor Elm's Aide expresses concern about the Pokémon that the rival stole because, I shall paraphrase, "Pokémon raised by bad people become bad themselves..."

 

[Drakon]

At least in HeartGold & SoulSilver, Professor Elm's Aide expresses concern about the Pokémon that the rival stole because, I shall paraphrase, "Pokémon raised by bad people become bad themselves..."

I'm talking about a pokémon being malicious of its own volition like the Malamar, not due to a bad influence.

Granted, that could also work, a pokémon raised by a bad person decides to continue their trainer's legacy. That'd be an interesting twist, finding out the "Team Leader" is a mere figurehead and the real team leader is long dead or something and their pokémon has taken up the mantle of the team leader.

 

[ThreeThousandFish]

I'm talking about a pokémon being malicious of its own volition like the Malamar, not due to a bad influence.

Ah, I comprehend now. In that case, the issue of whether spite & malice can be innate arises. I have no familiarity with that concept, unfortunately.

That'd be an interesting twist, finding out the "Team Leader" is a mere figurehead and the real team leader is long dead or something and their pokémon has taken up the mantle of the team leader.

There is a language barrier between between Pokémon and humans. Only in the aniated series & movies there are telepathic communicators (please tell me if that is erroneous), and Chatot, while capable of the production of words of humans, may not be capable of syntax, which would allow them to convey complex orders that a leader would need to provide for a crime syndicate.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

Only in the aniated series & movies there are telepathic communicators (please tell me if that is erroneous)

There's definitely been Pokemon capable of telepathic communication in side games (Mewtwo in Detective Pikachu, Regigigas in Shadows of Almia), and there's been multiple Pokemon in the main series that are capable of communication that's not telepathic. (A Zoroark in Gen 5 talks to the player when disguised as a backpacker, and Rotom communicates through the PokeDex) I would argue that all Pokemon should be able to understand human speech and syntax, as commands sometimes indicate targets as well as moves. (Like in double battles and using HMs)

 

[ThreeThousandFish]

Thank you for the correction, @TechSkylander1518 ! I suppose my argument crumbles.

 

[Warrior of Fire]

And who's to say that psychic types that specifically mention telepathy in their dex entries aren't capable of telepathic communication with humans and/or other Pokémon.

 

[Officer Snake]

I really think we can have both.
Maybe a main organisational team in the main game whilst an individual villain during the post game with a more personal goal.

 

[IncineROAR]

I'm talking about a pokémon being malicious of its own volition like the Malamar, not due to a bad influence.

I think this could be an interesting concept, but I'd want their to be some separation between the naughty Pokemon and the box art legendaries.

 

[Drakon]

I think this could be an interesting concept, but I'd want their to be some separation between the naughty Pokemon and the box art legendaries.

What exactly do you mean? I'm not speaking about having the box art Legendary be the team leader. Admittedly, that would be interesting but then it raises the point I mention below. Then again, it is possible that the team leader could be the opposite Legendary of the version. Like for instance, if Ho-Oh is the box art legendary, the team leader would be Lugia.

Granted, I'd also make it so the team leader pokémon cannot be captured.

 

[ThreeThousandFish]

Is any kind of antagonist (or kinds of antagonists) necessary for a Pokémon game? Stories can exist without conflict between the objectively favorable protagonist and the opponents that exist only as fodder for the former.

I understand that the Pokémon series inclines predominantly for children, and complexities beyond "Good v.s. Evil" may alienate some players who struggle to comprehend them or other players who prefer simplicity; however, I would qualify that conflict is almost negligible in the Pokémon games. Some teams are certainly significant in the Pokémon world and are capable of serious destruction and danger, but even in those cases I would argue that an evil team is not necessary for a narrative. Conflict, still of a simple & relatable type, can occur in other forms.

Bianca & her father in Black & White are an example of this. Primarily, they & their different beliefs affected their tense relationship until its resolution, and I am fairly certain that Team Plasma had no involvement with the heart of that issue.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

I think that antagonists, while not necessary, are a nice escape from day-to-day conflicts. Real life is already full of struggles and conflicts that aren't a direct Good vs Evil, and having people you care about constantly at odds with each other can be stressful. I wouldn't ask for Pokemon games to entirely remove conflicts like that, of course, but I feel like there's a fun to getting to just go all-out against someone because they're totally in the wrong that's not really possible when dealing with complex issues. (And from a gameplay perspective, antagonists do make more sense-you can't solve most arguments with Pokemon battles, after all)

 

[IncineROAR]

How about the villain be one of the main NPC' Father? That'll be a nice fun switch up.

What exactly do you mean? I'm not speaking about having the box art Legendary be the team leader. Admittedly, that would be interesting but then it raises the point I mention below. Then again, it is possible that the team leader could be the opposite Legendary of the version. Like for instance, if Ho-Oh is the box art legendary, the team leader would be Lugia.

Granted, I'd also make it so the team leader pokémon cannot be captured.

I have no idea what you are talking about. What I mean is, I would like it if the box art legendary has nothing to do with the evil team's quest in the game.

 

[Matleo]

hmmm what would you say a villian team wants to win the pokemon league and take it over?
something like terrorist that want to remade gyms and league but want to win it first.

Also would be cool to have more villians with goals not related to stealing pokemon but rather lets say other things or destroying things to make something happen like to see what legendary wins or more interesting stuff...