'Pokemon Battle Trozei': How Many Times Do I Need to Catch Them All?

Erik Kersting

Other games that have a successful collection system follow the idea that what the player collects should have some sort of pragmatic value. This iteration of Pokemon does not.

Pokemon Battle Troze

Publisher: Nintendo
Players: 1
Price: $7.99
Platform: Nintendo 3DS
ESRB Rating: Everyone
Developer: Genius Sonority
Release Date: 2012-03-20

The Pokemon series has always been known for collection, so much so that the series's catch phrase is “Gotta Catch 'Em All.” As the games have evolved, the word “All” has become more and more inclusive and vague, going from 151 individual pokemon to over 700. What once seemed like a difficult, but feasible goal in the turn based strategy game is slowly becoming an impossibility. Despite this, the main draws of the series remain the same, the simple turn based design, the cute creatures, and the vast variety of pokemon that the player can catch and add to their team.

Pokemon Battle Trozei, despite being a puzzle spin-off game, stays true to most of the tenets of the Pokemon series. The gameplay is very simple, similar to a slightly shorter and more focused Bejeweled, the cute monsters are in the forefront, and the player's main drive is to “catch 'em all,” as the game manages to combine collecting pokemon with puzzle elements. The player even battles monsters to catch them, just like in the main game. Yet, despite mirroring the main game well, Pokemon Battle Trozei misses why people want to collect, and thus collection becomes an almost meaningless endeavor in the game.

The gameplay in the main Pokemon games contributes to the desire of the player to collect. The player begins with only one pokemon and the main drive of the game is catching more with the purpose of creating a team to battle other trainers and become a “Pokemon Master.” Each pokemon has a different moveset and different strengths and weaknesses and can be useful as long as the player is creative. Thus, collecting isn't just about fulfilling some internal desire to collect, but rather it is a practical approach to beating the game and to fully enjoying the gameplay.

Other games that have a successful collection system follow the idea that what the player collects should have some sort of pragmatic value. League of Legends, allows the player to collect champions, each of which has his or her own unique strengths and weaknesses and completely different movesets. Gaining a new champion means more unique gameplay opportunity and adds to the replay value of the game, just like in Pokemon. In short, collecting doesn't exist just for the sake of collecting, but to enhance an already deep game.

Pokemon Battle Trozei completely misses this fundamental part of collecting. While there is some incorporation of pushing collection and gameplay together, it is almost meaningless in the scope of the game. As the player ropes around the wild catching pokemon, they can add a single pokemon that they've caught to their team (think of it as collecting and adding different minerals to your Bejeweled game) that will help them catch and do more damage as they rack up combos. This has almost no effect on the gameplay though, and “catching 'em all” has even less. Only a few pokemon are truly viable because one group (legendary pokemon) do nearly three times as much damage as all the others, and you can catch them right away. So the combination of gameplay and collection, despite intentions otherwise, just becomes collection for collection's sake.

I don't have a solution for how to combine the puzzle nature of Pokemon Battle Trozei with the strong themes of collection present in the Pokemon main series, but this is certainly not it. Despite featuring robust puzzle gameplay, nearly every other element of Pokemon Battle Trozei, especially the collection aspect(which is what sets it apart from its predecessor), seems tacked on instead of fully thought out. This may be the nature of spin-off games, but it feels painful here.


So far J. J. Abrams and Rian Johnson resemble children at play, remaking the films they fell in love with. As an audience, however, we desire a fuller experience.

As recently as the lackluster episodes I-III of the Star Wars saga, the embossed gold logo followed by scrolling prologue text was cause for excitement. In the approach to the release of any of the then new prequel installments, the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare, followed by the Lucas Film logo, teased one's impulsive excitement at a glimpse into the next installment's narrative. Then sat in the movie theatre on the anticipated day of release, the sight and sound of the Twentieth Century Fox fanfare signalled the end of fevered anticipation. Whatever happened to those times? For some of us, is it a product of youth in which age now denies us the ability to lose ourselves within such adolescent pleasure? There's no answer to this question -- only the realisation that this sensation is missing and it has been since the summer of 2005. Star Wars is now a movie to tick off your to-watch list, no longer a spark in the dreary reality of the everyday. The magic has disappeared… Star Wars is spiritually dead.

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.