6th Gen Pokemon Lore Deterring?

I've been pondering something for a long time now, since the titles were announced, and I've been met with mixed responses. Now I understand this is probably something that some people won't understand, but I've always liked the lore of Pokemon more than the repetitiveness of the game-play mechanics, and there's something about these games that's already really acting as a thorn in my sides. And well, I wanted to know what you guys think, being that this is a lovely community I've been lurking for just over a year.

Now it's worth mentioning I'm anything but a die-hard Pokemon fan, and that I'm not biased into mindlessly loving/hating it, as some are. That said, I think that these new games are stomping on the lore entirely. At very least, the long running metaphor that made every game feel like it wasn't just some random person you're playing as. That you were playing as people connected. The titles of the games were always a homage to the origins in Pallet Town (palette), and the colours were always the representation that even though we are all different, even though we don't seem alike at all, that we are all connected within our hearts. I was told that a lot of people don't even know this, and that nobody would even care, since the "Original" age of Pokemon died with generation 2.

There's a lot of points I'll be omitting since this is mostly leading to the following question... Do you think that breaking the metaphor was a good idea, a bad one, or that it really doesn't matter for the story at all? ...I don't know, it just seems like the newer generations don't really have any regard for the older ones, restricting the wild Pokemon to a repetitive level despite there being nearly a thousand Pokes. I'm not trying to look like I'm hating on the series, I do love it, and the merits generally outmatch the shortcomings, but doesn't the lore feel like it's... Crippling, and I really want to know what you guys think on it. (I'm so sorry I can't formulate this the way I wanted, English isn't my first language. I hope my points make sense.)

Changing the name on the box means nothing. If XY was named Cyan Magenta, it would not be "representing a metaphor". I think you are creating that idea in your head. But that is part of the game that there is so little plot or character - the player has to use his imagination to fill in the blanks.

X+Y(+Z) Refers to the XYZ axis AKA 3-Deminsions. As the fist games on the 3DS, this name is actually cleaver.

This is something that's mentioned heavily in the Adventures Manga, so I have to assume that it applies to the games. This isn't a headcanon.

I don't think the metaphor was there in the first place.

Narrowly, I don't want to pointlessly debate your specific assertions, since nothing can be gained from that. I can no more prove I'm right than you can prove that you are - there's just too much supposition surrounding it all.

Broadly though, I tend to believe that the lore and significance that people see in pokemon is largely their own creation - that virtually all of it springs solely from the imaginations of fans and was never really intended by the designers. All I see in the actual games is things that might, at a stretch, be considered vague handwaving somewhere in the general direction of deeper significance. I consider the leaps that fans make from that vague handwaving to claims of certain meaning to be no more substantive than shapes seen in clouds.

I dont think it really changes anything, and having played every generation from gen 1, i honestly dont see the metaphor you speak of.

In gen 1, obviously the player starts out at Pallet town, and all the cities/places are all named after colours, to fit with the theme of "colours spreading for a painters pallet". and obviously, the games themselves were named after colours. but thats as far as it goes.
Gen 2, i suppose you could argue that the names are colours (though i see them more as precious metals), and none of the cities are named after colours (Ecruteak isnt a colour!).
Gen 3, again, named after precious gems, not specifically colours (although the gems have become synonymous with the colour shades they exhibit), and once again, no colours in the place names!
Gen 4, no colours here, just some more precious gems/metals. no colours in the locations either
Gen 5. if i was being pedantic, i could say they are shades, not colours, but i suppose they can be considered "colours", but still no colour names in the locations.

Im afraid there is no great connecting link between naming conventions between the generations. It was just a nice thing they put into the very first generation to make it feel more "connected", but havent really bothered with since

Sure, X and Y may not be what you would expect, but its not that much more exotic than gen 2-4 naming really :/

There's a color model that uses the XYZ axis too so every gen except for 4 can still be argued to have a "color" theme. Also XYZ are used in describing crystal structures so these games aren't that far off from the color and gem themes.

Magmaruby and Aquasapphire said:

There's a color model that uses the XYZ axis too so every gen except for 4 can still be argued to have a "color" theme. Also XYZ are used in describing crystal structures so these games aren't that far off from the color and gem themes.

Click to expand...

Pearl, Diamond, and Platinum are special names for colors just like Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald. Though neither are really related to colors in their own respective rights. Neither are Black and White by technicalities.

Every new generation of Pokémon comes up with something unique and wonderful, technically in my opinion I think in regards to the games and such are really creative and in which fit the main legendary Pokémon. Though generation II was the first generation to actually completely change the format of having a story about the starter Pokémon and bring in a lore in which there are version exclusive legendary Pokémon, though in Gold/Silver... you got to capture one earlier before the other one, depending on which version you're playing. Where as... Generation III introduced something that had the legendary Pokémon exclusive to the game, and you could only capture one of them in the story, like in Ruby... you could only capture Groudon, and in Sapphire... you could only capture Kyogre.

Generation I was only the start... and the point in where Game Freak had only the concept of becoming the Champion as the main part of the story, 'cause at that time... they never had thought of having main Legendary Pokémon, only legendary Pokémon that were hidden in special places. So think of it as the starting point for a whole range of ideas. ^^

So yeah, I think it was great idea of Game Freak to break the metaphor in Generation I, so just imagine how it would've been if Generations II and later had the exact same format as Generation I... it probably would've been no back story on Legendary Pokémon, and probably would've had the starters as the mascots once again. xD