How much change is okay for a Pokemon?

This is a bit of a random topic I've been thinking about lately, but I'd like to know how others feel about this.

So, one thing fairly unique to Pokemon is that, in many ways, the Pokemon themselves and the gameplay itself is largely unchanged from back in the days of Red and Blue. If we look specifically at Gen 1 and 2 Pokemon, once the Special split was done, most Pokemon's stats are still the same, or at least mostly the same. Many Pokemon get new moves here and there, but moves are rarely taken away outside of TM and Tutor options. A Pokemon's type is never changed unless it's because a new type has been added, even when small changes for a few Pokemon would make sense. Abilities are also almost never changed. Some may occasionally be added, like Drizzle on Pelipper, but only if there's already an open "slot." To my knowledge, only Gengar has had his abilities changed, and no other Pokemon has legitimately had their ability replaced with a new one (there may be a few other exceptions, but very few regardless).

In more recent generations, we've seen stats get slight buffs, but no more than 40 points at max (and I think only Masquerain got that many). We've also just recently seen the first ever change in how a Pokemon evolves with Leafeon and Glaceon in Sword and Shield, if I'm not mistaken. There is the whole Feebas/Milotic thing, but that was more because the concept of raising a Pokemon's beauty was abolished, so that was more forced. There's no particular reason they couldn't just include a Mossy Rock and Icy Rock in Galar.

So my long-winded point is basically, GameFreak has been very conservative with changes that could impact existing Pokemon and mechanics, but was this ever necessary?

How much change do you think is acceptable for a Pokemon? Would you be okay with larger stat buffs to weak mons? How would you feel if more useless abilities were removed and replaced with better ones, like replacing Water Veil with Water Bubble which is objectively better? How would you feel if a Pokemon's Typing was changed (provided it made sense). What if Normal/Flying Pokemon all had their Normal typing removed and became pure Flying like with Corvinight's preevolutions? What is okay and what isn't okay, in your opinion? What are your thresholds for different kinds of changes?

Honestly, I think that if any sort of change (be it typing, an ability, etc) is benefitting the pokemon in some way, I'm all for it. There are a plethora of pokemon that I can think of that deserve stat boosts to make them more useful in-game. The changes that have been the most drastic I find are the gimmicks such as gigantamax or Z-moves which seem to be making the game unnecessarily complicated and complex, those alterations I could do without.

I'm always surprised they don't change them more. Between generations I think it would be interesting to switch up stats, abilities and types/variants. What you mentioned about Leafeon/Glaceon is funny to me because I thought the way they handled the eeveelutions was so stupid. Espeon and Umbreon should of just utilized a sun/moon stone, and Glaceon and Leafeon should of always just utilized a leaf/ice stone. Why they chose to complicate such things is beyond me. Even Pokemon that require specific items to evolve should of just had a stone. For example Dusclops needing a reaper cloth to evolve into Dusknoir... just use a dusk stone.

Out of the newest gimmicks I think Z moves made the most sense and I liked that any Pokemon could use a Z move. Megas were okay. Some I loved and others were meh, but the nice thing was you didn't have to use a Pokemon's mega form if you didn't want to. I haven't tried out Gigantamax yet so I can't speak on it, but it doesn't make me want to run out and get the games.

it does begs the question of why the gimmicks, though. i don't exactly remember gimmicks being a thing up until megas were revealed. i just wonder why Game Freak decided to change course so suddenly.

Well, GameFreak certainly doesn't seem interested in actually modernizing its combat system in any way, so I suppose they feel obligated to add massive gimmicks to try and make it seem significantly different without risking the fanbase being unhappy with newer combat mechanics.

I was thinking of this earlier. I can see why some people would think 'bigger' change would be unnecessary since when TPCI/GF experimented with it it didn't turn out great for some people, with the prime example, SuMo, often being at the bottom of people's favorite main series games (though they did still sell well). They probably are too scared to make more major changes so they go with gimmicks instead, since it lets them leave the main formula alone while keeping games 'different' enough. The regular formula is safe and will continue to sell well so I'm not expecting any drastic editing in the near future.... I just wish we'd at least get a bit more variety with the player character. Like, it's not the end of the world to let us have a dad again. Surely that won't turn people away?? May/Brendan will always be special there lol.

The problem with Game Freak is that they now treat changes in gameplay mechanics as one-off incidences that are unique to each game, rather than a natural evolution of the franchise the way they should be. Each game is exactly the same as the one that preceded it, only with a gimmick that makes it appear "different enough" that they use as a marketing tool; it's no different from many oft-reviled AAA franchises in that way. They don't seem to understand - or have long forgotten and/or run out of ideas - that you can ADD to gameplay and that still constitutes as change: this is how franchises grow and evolve over time. The only things Game Freak have added to the franchise that have actually stuck (that I can recall) are eggs, double battles (at least I think these are present in everything from Gen 3 onwards?) and the physical/special split...and I suppose maybe the dark, steel, and fairy types.

Every generation is basically the first generation, only with something added to make it "different enough" so they can market it as a new experience. In any other franchise, nothing would have been taken out over the years, and no, there are no justifiable external factors for taking things out. Not the meta (especially not now - this is why patches exist), not the hardware; nothing. If you're going to tell me now that the GBA couldn't handle Day/Night cycles when the GBC could...well. Game Freak's incompetence as programmers doesn't justify these things. But the stagnation of the franchise can be directly attributed to Game Freak's attitude towards change, I think. When people think of "change" they tend to think that means dramatically altering the core experience, but that isn't true at all: building upon the existing formula is also change. Quality of Life additions are change, albeit on a smaller scale. But little things go a long way, especially once they start to stack up.

But there are also plenty of ways to change the games outside of altering or building upon the gameplay systems. Why have we had the exact same narrative since Gen III, for instance? They could have presented a different narrative each time, rather than recycling the exact same plot over and over and OVER for the last five generations, with no improvements in how it is presented or in player involvement. They could have added some continuity to that without damaging the standalone experience, too - I mean, the Zelda series basically repeats the same plot in the same way that Pokemon does, but the connections between the games form a wider lore that is just completely absent in the Pokemon series, and would have made it so much better. I know people are going to bring up Gen V here, but Gen V's story was Gen III's all over again...twice. Different execution of the same narrative doesn't make the narrative somehow miraculously different.

The smaller changes brought up in the OP are things that should be done in patches, and I think they're absolutely fine - you can always re-adjust things with future patches if it drastically alters the meta and/or breaks the game. There is nothing wrong with balancing, and the existence of patches is a great thing, because in times past these things would just go forever unbalanced...I believe many people used to complain about dragon type Pokemon, and nothing could be done about that in earlier generations. There will never be an equal playing field, but making every Pokemon viable and making some Pokemon slightly less viable in an effort to create one cannot be a bad thing. Certainly, it'd be better than just removing a bunch of Pokemon and then claiming you can't add them back because it'd disturb your new meta...and then adding them anyway because there was no new meta and treating Pokemon as gimmicks is your new thing because of the horrendously poor quality of your newest titles. Ahahaha. Ha.

You can NEVER perfect a formula. There is always something you can add to make it better. Overcomplicating things is never a good idea, but what Game Freak has done over the entire lifespan of the franchise is treat the first generation as perfect games and re-sold them repeatedly, treating what should be meaningful changes as one-off gimmicks they can use to demonstrate how the next generation are somehow different from the others. I don't think they should change the core experience, but just because it isn't broken doesn't mean you can't make it better.