What would change if Pokemon games were designed to be single-player only JRPGs?

[Lluc]

Let's pretend we're in an alternate timeline where Pokemon was not a social game. The idea of trading or battling with other players was never introduced, neither do the ideas of there being 2 versions, events, or being able to transfer Pokemon from older games to new ones. The games are designed to fulfill a job of being a self-contained adventure a single player can enjoy and reach 100% completion without outside help. Not unlike most JRPGs, the non-mobile spin-off titles Pokemon has, or even Colosseum and XD (if you ignore the fact those 2 game had transferring mechanics).

What would change? For example (so you can disregard these if you want), would they bother programming in Pokemon beyond the regional dexes since there's no transferring mechanic? Would the battle system change without a pvp scene (for example, the introduction of the Fairy type seems to be a reaction to Dragon type's position in pvp)? Would they bother making remakes since there's no transferring mechanic? How would mythical Pokemon like Mew (if they'd even exist) be handled without events? Would there be any changes in the content and story with the philosophy of being a self-contained adventure with no social side? How successful would the series even realistically be like this? Would you still find the games enjoyable?

 

[NovaBrunswick]

I think Pokémon was always meant to be a social game, hence the idea of there being two separate versions and having to trade between the two to "catch 'em all" and complete the Pokédex. Taking all that away would be the complete opposite of the games' core philosophy and concept.

 

[Leonhart]

For me the collecting angle was always what made Pokemon so appealing, so having that be removed would take away my main reason for playing the games. The exploration and battle aspects wouldn't be enough to keep me interested in the games.

 

[Monox D. I-Fly]

Let's pretend we're in an alternate timeline where Pokemon was not a social game. The idea of trading or battling with other players was never introduced, neither do the ideas of there being 2 versions, events, or being able to transfer Pokemon from older games to new ones. The games are designed to fulfill a job of being a self-contained adventure a single player can enjoy and reach 100% completion without outside help.

What would change?

The franchise would have died after Gen I, probably.

 

[pacman000]

Satoshi Tajiri started thinking about making a game where players could transfer things from one cart to another after Ken Sugimori found two rare items in Dragon Quest, & they couldn’t figure out a way to move one item to Satoshi’s copy of the game. Later, when the Game Boy came out, Satoshi figured the game link cable could be used to transfer data, so he began thinking about making a big-catching game.

In short, there wouldn’t’ve been Pokemon without the ability to connect two systems to each other.

If we ignore that...

The games might’ve gotten finished a bit more quickly, since using the game link cable to transfer characters was experimental. But the ability to transfer characters was what separated Pokemon from other similar games. And it created a push for kids to get the games; they wanted to trade monsters with their friends. I’m not sure Pokemon would’ve been such a huge success without the ability to trade.

 

[KRSplat]

-If it weren't a social game, players wouldn't talk about it with other people.
For that to happen, it would have to be a scenario where conversations about Pokemon never happened,
since once the conversation on that topic starts, it's immediately social.
Even a singleplayer game becomes a social activity once players start talking about it.
Even solitaire players usually talk about the games that they partook in.

-There can absolutely be a Pokemon game with zero multiplayer functionality, and it would still be a social game,
once players are joining the conversation.
Allowing players to have multiplayer trades & battles is not a requirement for the game to be social.
Actually the multiplayer elements are an aftereffect of the game being social already.
The least social games are those that were so boring or uneventful, or unremarkable, that players don't want to talk about them.

-From my experience, in a world where Pokemon never became a social conversation topic,
other games such as Digimon or Tamagotchi or Furby would likely have continued to be regular topics of conversation.
Pokemon supplanted those games by having similar theme and gameplay, just essentially providing more namebrand recognition.
Also aside from Digimon, the hardware for games or toys like Tamagotchi and Furby most likely went out of production.
Since those games weren't able to secure namebrand recognition, and the hardware was designed for a certain target audience,
after the players combined forces to make a game that would be more socially acceptable, that seems to be how Pokemon was
not a new idea that players became socially conscious about, rather it was players who were already socializing about games that
were basically similar, the same, or identical to Pokemon, and the combination of those game inspired elements became Pokemon.

-At least from my perspective that is Pokemon being a namebrand recognition tool for a game that was already significant socially,
and it just supplants a different namebrand of game that is the same genre, or either is replaced eventually by a different format
that is able to be a similar style game, except given a different voice or identity.

-Maybe I got confused about the question, since I was answering with how it would have an impact on society if Pokemon was not socially recognized, instead of how Pokemon would be different if it wasn't multiplayer.

 

[Monox D. I-Fly]

-From my experience, in a world where Pokemon never became a social conversation topic,
other games such as Digimon or Tamagotchi or Furby would likely have continued to be regular topics of conversation.
Pokemon supplanted those games by having similar theme and gameplay, just essentially providing more namebrand recognition.
Also aside from Digimon, the hardware for games or toys like Tamagotchi and Furby most likely went out of production.
Since those games weren't able to secure namebrand recognition, and the hardware was designed for a certain target audience,
after the players combined forces to make a game that would be more socially acceptable, that seems to be how Pokemon was
not a new idea that players became socially conscious about, rather it was players who were already socializing about games that
were basically similar, the same, or identical to Pokemon, and the combination of those game inspired elements became Pokemon.

Kinda ironic that Digimon and Tamagotchi were made by the same company and in essence were the same product with Digimon aimed at the boys and Tamagotchi aimed at the girls. Some Tamagotchi characters even got transferred to Digimon (Nanimon & Wizarmon come to mind).

Also, never heard about Furby at all during that time. If I'm not mistaken, some Bogleech posts make comparison about them and the Gremlins.