A game design examination.
The start screen for the first American games, specifically Pokémon Red. Courtesy of Pokémon.
Pokémon is a franchise very dear to my heart. With vivid clarity, I remember my mom taking me to Toys ‘R’ Us in the late ’90s to buy my first Pokémon game, a copy of Pokémon Red. What was my very first Pokémon? An easy choice: Charmander, obviously! I look back on those early days with intense fondness. Nowadays, the narrative hasn’t changed much. My apartment has Pokémon plush scattered all over. I am an active participant in my local Pokémon Go community. I’ve even gotten multiple Pokémon tattoos, firmly cementing my love of the franchise as if the tattoos themselves were the act solidifying my devotion.
I’ve loved Pokémon long before I became aware of my passion for art and design. The games inhabit a unique space in my life. They exist among a small number of interests that have transcended age, existing for both my inner child and the wiser adult I exist as now. It is precisely this consistency throughout my life that gives the franchise such power in my consciousness. I was there, cheering on the franchise from the very beginning on the original Game Boy with Pokémon Red and Blue (technically only in the States, as the games were released as Red and Green two years prior in their native Japan.) It has been a fantastic journey watching the franchise itself evolve, from game to sequel, from portables to home consoles.
Throughout the series’ natural evolution, an element that has remained consistent is the fan base’s outspoken nature. Pokémon fans have a LOT to say. From denouncing new creature designs to criticizing the exclusion of features from newer games, an outside observer would be right to view the fandom as intense, harsh or even toxic. Most of the time, I can empathize with the fanbase’s points of view, if not fully embrace the zeal with which they communicate them. A big part of the joy of being a Pokémon fan is connecting with the diverse array of people who also call themselves fans.
However, with the release of the two most recent generational games in the mainline series (excluding spinoff games or mobile apps) I have arrived at a point, both as a fan and as a designer, where I find myself valuing different choices than what is generally considered good among the community. The eighth generation of games, Pokémon Sword and Pokémon Shield (SwSh) released in November 2019. The ninth generation, Pokémon Scarlet and Pokémon Violet (SV) followed in November 2022. These entries, released in pairs as series tradition, are an interesting case study of what constitutes successful design. What is seen as playable? What do players generally consider to be good?
The start screen for the eighth generation, Pokémon Sword, featuring my crazy cool team of champions.
Considering the sheer breadth of time I’ve amassed into these games and the series as a whole, I see value in comparing the two generations. Far too often, I see conversation denigrating Sword and Shield, two games with fantastic quality of life (QoL) improvements that streamline and ease long-existing issues. Consensus seems to imply these were terrible games, full stop. The critique is even harsher for Scarlet and Violet, though rightfully so. The games aimed for sweeping change but failed when implementing many core design choices. Given my exposure to these games and the general community discourse, I wanted to examine both games to uncover what aspects contribute to successful, intuitive design and add to the conversation.
With that intention in mind, I aim to compare the games primarily through their interfaces and key features / functions. I am looking at gameplay design and player interaction more than I am art or sound design. Therefore, I will divide the following examination into four primary categories: general menu and interface, map systems, Pokémon storage, and the Pokédex.
As Don Norman says, “Good design is quiet and hard to notice. Bad design screams out its inadequacy.” The interface for a digital product is potentially the most vital aspect to get right. This is no different for video games. As digital products, gamers interact with layered systems and multiple mechanics to progress and interact with a game. As digital products, both SwSh and SV offer fascinating examples of how to design an interface. One game had a lot of conversation around performance and design, whereas the other had a lot of players upset over a change in the status quo. One design was loud, whereas the other was simply controversial.
It is safe to admit upfront: I had a much easier time interacting with the systems in SwSh than in SV. The former game offered options and laid out the possible interactions cleanly and consistently. The latter game, well… every time I boot up my copy of Scarlet, I must refamiliarize myself with which button controls which action. In fact, the game often requires me to supply conscious effort even when I’m not returning after time away. “How do I do that again?” Playing the game is complicated by the most fundamental player interactions.
Upon my initial experience playing Sword, I discovered a recurring pattern of numerous gameplay improvements made by the designers, which updated the overall quality of life (QoL) in various ways. QoL refers to any design decision that makes the game or product more understandable, easier overall, and generally accessible to more players. These are often subtle tweaks, noticeable only from a more macro perspective spanning multiple franchise entries. However, as a longtime player, I noticed them immediately through gameplay, which feels better in any number of different ways.
For example, right from the start, the main menu in SwSh offers choice: players can rearrange the eight icons into any order they want. This allows players to decide the icons’ relative importance and customize the menu to individual playstyles. I specifically placed my most frequently used icons on the far left. Since the menu cursor originates on the left, this reduced the amount of input and time required for me to access these mechanics. Having options helped the game work exceptionally well for me, which extended to every player who chose to customize. No other game in the series offered this freedom.
The main menu in Pokémon Sword showing the Bag icon being moved left.
To supplement this design’s focus on ease of use, every menu screen contains a slim, black bar along the bottom of the screen. This bar contains dynamic lists of possible actions and the corresponding buttons. For players new to the game, this helps teach button mapping and potentially introduce new features to the player. It can also act as a means to refamiliarize players if they have not played recently or to ease the learning curve for less advanced players. Both scenarios make the game easier for players.
Another fantastic QoL update in SwSh is apparent when saving the game. Players can press a single button from the main menu directly to access saving. In previous games, saving looked like: pausing the game to access the menu, navigating to a save submenu, selecting save, confirming the action followed by a brief pause and some jaunty save music while the action completes. While a save submenu still exists, saving the game has decreased from five to ten seconds to roughly three. Such a minute amount of time is insignificant individually, but these interactions accumulate over time and affect the experience on a holistic level. Repeated poor interactions can sway a product’s perception toward a more negative overall attitude.
Overall, using the menus in SwSh felt intuitive and easy to master. Comparing both games’ interfaces, SV features an increased use of button mapping (linking actions directly to the press of a button) instead of menu interfaces. I conclude this reliance on buttons accounts for my increased personal difficulty learning and (maybe more crucially) remembering how to play. SV requires the player to memorize more buttons to interact with its gameplay systems. Design guidance generally suggests simplifying actions to give users an easier and more enjoyable experience.
The main menu in Pokémon Scarlet showing a distinctly different approach to interface design.
Regarding button mapping, I compared both games to understand how each utilizes the Nintendo Switch’s face buttons. Unsurprisingly to neither of us, SV had a complete catalog of unique button actions. Out of 16 total buttons, one game uses significantly more than the other… I’ll let you discern which. For the sake of readability and to more blatantly call out this lousy design practice, the buttons and corresponding actions are isolated in their own section below.
In comparison between the two generations, there is no comparison. SV relies more heavily on the player to remember its feature set and functionality via buttons. SwSh either has fewer features or manages them more efficiently through menus and relevant information displayed within the interface.
In another example of requiring more from players, the user flow managing item usage is laid out differently per game. In SV, the player: selects an item, confirms the item, and selects the Pokémon. Including two menu clicks to navigate into the relevant submenu, that is five clicks per item used. In SwSh, the player… does the same exact thing. Including the two menu clicks, there are five steps… unless the player wants to use more than one instance of an item. If so, the player can immediately use another of the same item. To use one item, 5 clicks; two items, 6 clicks; 7 clicks; 8 clicks; and so on. In SV, the player repeats the entire three steps. From 5 clicks to 8, 11, 14, and so forth.
These two distinct pathways suggest a lot regarding each game’s design process. A lot could be said of the design thinking and even more constructive critique could be applied. However, it is sufficient to declare SV is a more time-consuming, less streamlined process. This difference in what each game asks from players is very apparent when navigating the SV menus. Due to the many features packed into the game, the multitude of submenus to utilize them all, and the game’s overall state of optimization and visual fidelity, SV offers a slower experience through its menu systems and feature set.
Maps are a big part of every Pokémon game because regions are a big part of every Pokémon game. Each new game has its own unique location where the story is set, full of diverse creatures and characters that give each game its unique experience. As the games have evolved, so have the maps.
The two newest games have some of the most useful maps to date. Both maps are accessed the same way: through the main menu after two button presses. Both maps now contain a variety of icons to signify in-game content such as raids and fast-travel points. In SwSh, these were more limited. Only fast travel points and the in-game weather patterns are displayed. The SV map expanded the depth of icons, including various raids and other types of dynamic events, their location, and other pertinent info. This was extremely useful, considering how SV fleshed out these mechanics introduced in SwSh. Players save a lot of time by not having to traverse the game map to check the content manually.
A small section of the map in Pokémon Scarlet displaying nearby Pokémon, raid icons and the extremely adorable Rotom as a magnifying glass.
The latter new addition, the ability to fast-travel from the map itself, was another welcome QoL update introduced in SwSh. This simple change eliminates the need for players to always keep specific Pokémon in their party. Removing this barrier allowed more player experimentation with different Pokémon team / move set compositions and singlehandedly eliminated the frustration felt by players when needing to backtrack steps to gain the means to progress forward. Like other QoL changes, this minor tweak feels long overdue and obvious in hindsight, yet highly welcome as a player myself.
Due to changes fully adopting open-world design (increasing the size of the explorable player area) in SV, I use this game map often. I can sometimes press the correct button on my first attempt, but not always. Two to three button presses generally suffice to remember the correct button. Once the map is open, there are four fixed zoom settings. I often need to switch between these settings to comprehend the map and answer any questions thoroughly. However, switching to the farthest setting will reset your position to the map’s middle upon zooming back in. This oversight created a lot of irritation within me when using the map. The cute microanimation of Rotom as you navigate the map is a tiny touch of joy I appreciate, but it’s not enough to balance out the map’s other simple but consistent frustrations.
A section of the map from Pokémon Sword. Notice the stylization and ever present black bar at the bottom of the screenshot.
In comparison, the SwSh map is significantly simplified. It always displays in the same orientation, unlike the dynamic map in SV which can orient itself in whatever cardinal direction the player is facing. Such stylization choices implemented do not aim for accuracy but readability in service of helping users build an internal mental model. This model allows users to understand the map mentally with less need to consult the map for clarification. This tactic is similar to the design of many subway and train maps: not geographically accurate but conveying critical information, such as stations and transfers, quickly and easily. Despite offering less, the experience is quicker to use.
There are perks and quirks to each map design. Each map is generally well-designed and helpful. I wouldn’t declare one more successful than the other. They simply save time in different ways. I do not raid very often so the raid icons were rarely valuable. However, seeing what Pokémon are spawning in mass outbreaks at a glance is hugely beneficial. Overall, I appreciate the efficient designs and both maps are miles ahead of their counterparts in previous generations of the franchise.
In 1998, Bill designed the then-revolutionary Pokémon Storage System in the original pair of games, a now-common feature and key mechanic of every subsequent game to date. This feature allows players to catch then store Pokémon beyond the series’ six Pokémon party limit. Thanks, Bill!
Both games access this storage similarly through the main menu. In a familiar pattern, SwSh introduced a fantastic QoL update to the series. For the first time, players could access their Pokémon storage from anywhere in the game world. Previously, a player had to navigate to predetermined locations, usually the single Pokémon Center in every town, if they wanted to change the six Pokémon in their party. Now, with a single button press while viewing their Pokémon, players can access this functionality at any time.
The interface for Pokémon storage boxes in SwSh displaying a clean aesthetic and focus on information.
Sword and Shield excelled at simplifying preexisting gameplay mechanics to provide fine-tuned gameplay that was some of the most intuitive in the entire series. With a single button press, players can save time and avoid learning specific play habits to facilitate gameplay. Another example of this includes editing your party order. A single press of the Y button allows you to change the Pokémon’s position; the same pattern is replicated when reorganizing the main menu, as discussed above. This helps users associate this specific button with this specific action more quickly and naturally.
This screenshot shows a Pokémon party being rearranged, demonstrating the repeating patterns and inputs used throughout the interface in SwSh.
All in all, the storage boxes do not differ much between games in terms of functionality. Both games offer the same options for each Pokémon: move a Pokémon, check its summary or held item, apply markings (a mechanic to help sort and filter) or release them back into the wild. I found differences only in how each game displays this functionality visually. Overall, the relevant information hierarchy feels more correct therefore easier to parse in SwSh storage boxes.
The interface for Pokémon storage boxes in SV displaying a visual aesthetic and differences in visual user interface.
Take stats as an example. Every Pokémon has unique stats affected by an entire slate of different factors. These become more relevant in competitive play but are still beneficial to players of all skill levels. You can review stats on an individual creature basis in the storage itself. SwSh displays a vertical list with each trait and its corresponding value. SV displays this same information as a visual, hexagonal graph, with the corresponding numerical values oriented around the shape.
Overall, I am biased towards the box design in SwSh. Why? I could use more of the functionality without teaching myself how. I understood (and can check) the various methods to select a single or multiple Pokémon. Each unique mode is supplemented by help text in the black bar along the bottom. (Yes, SV has a similar design choice but the implementation is not as extensive and lacks the cohesion SwSh provides through a consistent visual treatment.) I cannot deny that design will always be subjective. My preference does not make it better. However, I can say that I utilized the feature set more fully and consistently within SwSh. Therefore, I would argue that gives it a slight edge in terms of being the more functional design.
The Pokédex appears as the final category for this study. Like the Pokémon storage, this game mechanic has been a staple of every game and even the Pokémon anime. It plays a key role in both narratives as the plot device encouraging the main character to venture forth, battle, and catch every Pokémon within the region. As the game declares, ‘Gotta catch ’em all!’ (Though technically speaking, as a game wonk myself, that catchphrase has not been used since at least 2002, if not earlier, as catching every Pokémon in a single pair of games has been impossible since the second generation. Fun technical fact!)
As mentioned earlier, Pokémon fans are an outspoken group. Before the launch of SwSh, every Pokémon had been available in every game through trading with other generations of games, if not directly within the game itself. SwSh marked the first time the developers chose to limit the number of available creatures. To put it lightly, player reaction was harsh. This negative sentiment affected so much of the conversation preceding the launch of the eighth generation. I would even argue it affected reception post-launch, as players were less willing to see positive qualities through already-solidified preconceptions. The trend of limited Pokédexes continued in the subsequent generation.
A series of screenshots demonstrating various screens within the Pokédex interface in SwSh.
Despite this similarity, both games feature different takes on the mechanic. SwSh features a traditional take in line with previous games whereas SV offers a more visual approach. Featuring a cute bookshelf aesthetic, each Pokémon is given a vibrant screenshot as its “cover.” Different game areas are divided into “books” or sections within the Pokédex. A similar division occurs in SwSh through a more traditional text / icon design. Similarly, each game accesses the dex differently: through the main menu in SwSh and a face button in SV.
As a longtime player, I utilize the Pokédex to reference what Pokémon I need to catch and where to find them. Therefore, seeking out a specific creature is a common task. Within the dex, I can move creature by creature one at a time or page by page, moving the entire view of displayed creatures by five to ten at a time. I often search by page, already having a general idea of where to go. In SwSh, I can move from beginning to end in five to six seconds. In SV, the same task takes 25 seconds. This functionality has been present in all previous games. I have no idea why the developers would remove this simple interaction, reducing a consistently viable interaction.
A series of screenshots demonstrating various screens within the Pokédex interface in SV.
My overall experience with the SV Pokédex was slow and clunky. Before any performance updates, the game’s first version featured even slower interactions. The game failed to load relevant entries as I scrolled through the dex, increasing time from end to end. While not particularly revolutionary in its design, SwSh feels fast and responsive in contrast. This leads to the design quandary: do we prioritize functionality, ease of use, or visual fidelity?
It is pertinent to mention quickly that I considered examining how Pokémon battles compare between games. I was surprised to discover a high degree of parity between the two generations. In fact, both are practically identical in terms of functionality. There are some visual layout tweaks here and there, but the button inputs almost mirror each other down to the exact button.
I only have one minor issue, which stems from my longtime position as a player: I love seeing stats. As a wonk for details, I missed seeing the more individualized view of how each Pokémon increased in power upon leveling at the end of each battle. SV does away with this in favor of streamlining the speed of battles but the option to toggle this function would be comforting to me as a long-time player.
Seeing my Pokémon’s stats improve, especially after working to skew them in my favor, is very satisfying.
Overall, both games have a lot to offer Pokémon fans. In my view, the fan base was far too harsh on Pokémon Sword and Pokémon Shield due to the Pokédex controversy. This prevented many players from being willing to see a game offering the best menus and controls scheme of any game in the series yet. Long-existing issues were suddenly rendered irrelevant due to clever design choices. Personally, I revisit this game often to train my Pokémon via its extremely beginner-friendly mechanics that make an otherwise grind of an experience into a breezy walk in the Poképark.
Whereas SwSh offered fine-tuned gameplay, Pokémon Scarlet and Pokémon Violet offered drastic changes to shake up gameplay mechanics. For the first time, exploration was expansive, offering players freedom of choice in how to complete the game. In making this transition, the developers gambled with many new gameplay ideas. I think many of these were unsuccessful and only made the overall experience more cluttered. These ideas required drastic control scheme changes, complicating the inputs overall. Yes, the menus and mechanics were more challenging to learn. The world felt barren and uninspired. NPC’s were lifeless. The visuals failed to hit even the most basic standard for modern games. However, the moment-to-moment gameplay of exploring the (ugly, muddy, unoptimized) world is somehow more fun than ever.
From a design perspective, Sword and Shield exist as two excellent additions to the franchise that fans failed to appreciate fully. Scarlet and Violet get unfairly vilified due to their subpar visuals and fans’ unrealistic expectations for graphic fidelity. Both generations of games exist during periods of massive transition. I can understand why both sets were rough around the edges. Game development costs, both financial and human, have increased dramatically since the days of Pokémon on the Game Boy. However, as far as design basics are concerned, the principles remain consistent. Understanding user needs and human psychology will always lead to better products. Prioritizing ease of use and adapting to user behavior will always result in happy experiences. I’m uncertain how the developers went from creating such a smooth experience to one plagued with so many issues. However, as a long-time fan, I am beyond excited to continue to watch the series evolve, as a fan and a designer, with childlike excitement and the wisdom to look critically.
How design affects gaming in two generations of Pokémon was originally published in UX Collective on Medium, where people are continuing the conversation by highlighting and responding to this story.
