How though? I’m genuinely confused at this part. I mean, aside from the graphics for Sword and Shield not looking that good and some other minor things, in what ways have other Nintendo franchises improved in innovation and quality that Pokemon hasn’t? There have been a lot of new features and things added in gens 6 and 7 that differentiate it from the first five gens of Pokemon, so I’m curious for an explanation of how this is so.
Oof... This would take an entire essay to explain, but I'll try to shorten things. >.<
In Zelda:
-Their latest game took a new open world approach that was so good, it revolutionized game design of that genre of games.
In Animal Crossing:
-In the E3 trailer shown to us, they added an entirely new system of finding and managing resources, digging out paths, and basically developing a deserted island into a full-fledged town of our own. How is that not revolutionary in Animal Crossing?
In Mario:
-Super Mario Odyssey supposedly had so much content, customization, and thought and details put into it, that it revolutionized the whole genre of collectathon games.
In Fire Emblem:
-I don't know much about them, but before the E3 and leaks, the Fandom was considered the most angry of the franchises. But after them, there's so much hype in the fans that it looks like the Pokemon and Emblem fanbases switched sides right now.
Now, compared to Pokemon:
-The battle system has remained extremely similar to Generation IV - and most of the additional features added since haven't revolutionized it much at all. Mega Evolution is just added stat increases and type/ability changes in battle, while Z-moves are just strong 1-time moves - and the fact that they removed them from Sword/Shield tells me they were just gimmicks to the game designers. Dynamax looks like a hybrid of Megas and Z-moves, with less effort on designs and graphics - And also doesn't revolutionize the battle system either in the same manner.
Since gen 7 The story arc and game progression curve has remained the same as the original titles. The same Lv. 5 Grass/Fire/Water Pokemon, the same early route system, the same regionally designed bird/rat, the same leveling up progression throughout the routes, the same mission to be champion, the same evil team, the same timing of legendary encounters, same items and much, much more. We could swap the new designs out and replace them with gen 1 Pokemon, rename every with gen one monikers, (Team Rocket, City names, etc.), and you'd find how crazy similar each Pokemon game is to each other. So far, the E3 demo hasn't proven it will be any different.
-Gamefreak tends to rush Pokemon games out, and never puts enough time to really polish them up. As a result, many of the features they've added don't feel fleshed out, and they have to remove features as well. People have called Pokemon the "Call of Duty" of Nintendo, where they just spam 'okay' games every year instead of taking time to make a
great one.
-Game Freak is intentionally understaffed compared to other nintendo studios. Some sources say they have half the staff of the Zelda crew, and that they outsourced the Pokemon modeling to another company called Creatures. That, despite that they hold one of the biggest franchises in the world, and could have easily developed their staff for the games over the 20+ years of their existence.
There's much more to add, but again - It would take an entire essay.