the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 26 Mar 2024
GC Insights: The Anthro-Pokécene – Environmental impacts echoed in the Pokémon world
Abstract. Public perception of anthropogenic environmental impacts including climate change is primarily driven by exposure to different forms of media. Here, we show how the Pokémon franchise, the largest multimedia franchise worldwide, mirrors public discourse in the video games’ narratives with regard to human impacts on environmental change, demonstrating a trajectory towards greater and more explicit acknowledgement of climate change and anthropogenic impacts in each released game.
- Preprint
(633 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2024-2', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Apr 2024
This is an insightful paper that leaves me wishing for a more extensive investigation on this topic. Assuming that in this case there are space limitations, I encourage the authors to expand and deepen their analysis in future publications. Similarly, given more space, I would recommend a deeper engagement with the games and nature/environment/ecology/climate change literature, which has been growing steadily in the past five years or so.
Find below some notes that may improve the paper:
The authors say "In many cases, the graphical quality of games has made it possible for game environments to be indistinguishable from their real-world counterparts (Hut et al., 2019)." I do not think that this sentence is accurate, especially given that the reference provided does not seem to indicate anything of the sort, as it concludes: "We have demonstrated that while geoscientists might be slightly, but statistically significantly, better at separating real world photos of landscapes from video game screenshots, non-geoscientists are still capable of identifying landscapes from a video game, even when both the real world photos and the video game screenshots are filtered through an artistic “van Gogh” filter. This suggests that people recognize the natural features in video game worlds for the fantastical settings that they are..." I would suggest that the sentence is either clarified and properly justified with a reference (what is meant by indistinguishable? In terms of photo-realism? Plausibility of visible geological features? Complexity of ecological modeling?) or dropped altogether.
"... how have they mirror public discourse and priorities?" -> mirrored
In the methods, please clarify what is meant by "game scripts." Are these complete transcripts of all the textual content that players encounter, summaries...?
"The coral Pokémon Corsola, previously depicted as a healthy pink coral, appears in Galar as a white bleached coral" -> I would also add that its type changes from water and rock to ghost, quite overtly implying that the coral is not only bleached but dead.
"The franchise’s use of morally ambiguous storylines to present the nuance and complexity of environmental 100 change and associated decision-making in an increasingly politically polarized world." -> Revise grammar (perhaps "the franchise uses").
"The conclusion of this story notes that in order to create a better world, people must cooperate globally, which is often quoted as a necessary approach to lessen climate impacts, with the COP26 meeting being subtitled Together for our planet (TheUnitedNations, 2021)." -> Beyond the framing of conferences and their messaging, the authors could cite the latest IPCC synthesis report and its insights on climate justice and cooperation as the mitigation and adaptation strategies advocated for.
"Maintaining hope that we can overcome modern environmental challenges if we want to continue to push for improvement, rather than collectively default to hopeless catastrophism." -> Revise grammar, since I am not sure this expression works as a standalone sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2024-2-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lewis Alcott, 13 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gc.copernicus.org/preprints/gc-2024-2/gc-2024-2-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lewis Alcott, 13 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2024-2', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 May 2024
This paper poses an interesting question of increased environmentalism in the Pokémon franchise but fails to move beyond conjecture in answering it. I strongly encourage the authors to edit their methodology and reveal the results of their currently described methods (e.g., results of searching environment-related terms in Bulbapedia) in order to provide evidence of escalation of environmental thoughts in Pokémon and overall video game industry. This paper would also benefit from a wider focus beyond only main English-language video game releases to include shows, movies, and other pop culture impacts to definitively analyze increasing environmentalism within the Pokémon brand.
Notes that would improve the paper (specific edits, grammar, etc…)
- Abstract, line 17: Is your focus on Pokémon the franchise, or “video game narratives”? Both are mentioned throughout the paper, but only video games appear in Figure 1.
- Abstract, line 18: You state you find both “greater and more explicit acknowledgment” – no results are shown to support this. Results that would be convincing are 1) more occurrences of environmental-related terminology in video game scripts or articles, and/or 2) more frequent (percentage of words) environmental references.
- Introduction, line 43: Should likely be “have they mirrored public discourse”.
- Methods: what defines a “main series” Pokémon game? How were the search terms chosen? How were queries performed (e.g., exact match, entry heading only, separate words vs combinations, etc…)? How are these search terms compared across timelines of public perception and climate policy? How is public perception of anthropogenic change measured? Why are major events in climate policy limited to IPCC Assessment Reports and UN decisions? There are many country-specific rulings that could be used here, including Japanese policy changes that may affect Pokémon development more than UN-specific decisions.
- Methods, line 51: Should likely be “anthropogenic climate change”
- Figure 1: Unclear on the relation between the antagonist motivations and climate-change related policies and events. Also, what scale are you using to define “escalation”? It is unclear how the 2006 motivation of “Destory the Universe and start again” has a lower escalation measure than the 2010 motivation of “Stop Pokémon fighting”, for example.
- Figure 1: “Pokemon” in Black/White(2010) label should be Pokémon
- Anthro-Pokécene, line 72: Observatory reference does not include pre-2004 papers, which therefore invalidates the claim “climate change was not the most central environmental topic in virtually all discourse”, as there is no data in the reference to support or deny this.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 75-76: The Red/Yellow/Blue series is singled out for being different because it was completed before the Kyoto Protocol, but in Figure 1, it has the same theme as the Gold/Silver series. Why do you distinguish between pre- and post-Kyoto game development in this case?
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 78-86: The Kaliroff citiation, in addition to being an un-peer reviewed opinion article, does not include any direct quotes or other direct evidence linking Isahaya Tidal Flats to Ruby/Spphire game development. I agree there could be a link between the two, but the direct relationship implied by this paragraph is misleading.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 88-97: Once again, I agree that there is an environmentalist leaning to the Alola and Galar settings, but the link between them and the Paris Agreement is circumstantial at best.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 99-108: COP26 was in 2021 – how does the title of this summit apply to the motivations of the developers for a game released in 2013? If you are arguing for the escalation of environmental meaning across Pokemon games, then a direct link between a Pokémon game in 2013 and a UN summit in 2021 should be provided.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 123-131: It is worth noting that dystopian video games are often the opposite of nihilistic and can be hopeful & progressive – for example, see Perez-Latorre & Oliva’s 2017 analysis of Bioshock Infinite. The Change citation covers the usefulness of exploring and modeling future worlds, but only covers one side without exploring how we as an audience are meant to interact with dystopic games as well.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2024-2-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lewis Alcott, 13 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gc.copernicus.org/preprints/gc-2024-2/gc-2024-2-AC2-supplement.pdf
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on gc-2024-2', Anonymous Referee #1, 18 Apr 2024
This is an insightful paper that leaves me wishing for a more extensive investigation on this topic. Assuming that in this case there are space limitations, I encourage the authors to expand and deepen their analysis in future publications. Similarly, given more space, I would recommend a deeper engagement with the games and nature/environment/ecology/climate change literature, which has been growing steadily in the past five years or so.
Find below some notes that may improve the paper:
The authors say "In many cases, the graphical quality of games has made it possible for game environments to be indistinguishable from their real-world counterparts (Hut et al., 2019)." I do not think that this sentence is accurate, especially given that the reference provided does not seem to indicate anything of the sort, as it concludes: "We have demonstrated that while geoscientists might be slightly, but statistically significantly, better at separating real world photos of landscapes from video game screenshots, non-geoscientists are still capable of identifying landscapes from a video game, even when both the real world photos and the video game screenshots are filtered through an artistic “van Gogh” filter. This suggests that people recognize the natural features in video game worlds for the fantastical settings that they are..." I would suggest that the sentence is either clarified and properly justified with a reference (what is meant by indistinguishable? In terms of photo-realism? Plausibility of visible geological features? Complexity of ecological modeling?) or dropped altogether.
"... how have they mirror public discourse and priorities?" -> mirrored
In the methods, please clarify what is meant by "game scripts." Are these complete transcripts of all the textual content that players encounter, summaries...?
"The coral Pokémon Corsola, previously depicted as a healthy pink coral, appears in Galar as a white bleached coral" -> I would also add that its type changes from water and rock to ghost, quite overtly implying that the coral is not only bleached but dead.
"The franchise’s use of morally ambiguous storylines to present the nuance and complexity of environmental 100 change and associated decision-making in an increasingly politically polarized world." -> Revise grammar (perhaps "the franchise uses").
"The conclusion of this story notes that in order to create a better world, people must cooperate globally, which is often quoted as a necessary approach to lessen climate impacts, with the COP26 meeting being subtitled Together for our planet (TheUnitedNations, 2021)." -> Beyond the framing of conferences and their messaging, the authors could cite the latest IPCC synthesis report and its insights on climate justice and cooperation as the mitigation and adaptation strategies advocated for.
"Maintaining hope that we can overcome modern environmental challenges if we want to continue to push for improvement, rather than collectively default to hopeless catastrophism." -> Revise grammar, since I am not sure this expression works as a standalone sentence.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2024-2-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lewis Alcott, 13 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gc.copernicus.org/preprints/gc-2024-2/gc-2024-2-AC1-supplement.pdf
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Lewis Alcott, 13 Aug 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on gc-2024-2', Anonymous Referee #2, 07 May 2024
This paper poses an interesting question of increased environmentalism in the Pokémon franchise but fails to move beyond conjecture in answering it. I strongly encourage the authors to edit their methodology and reveal the results of their currently described methods (e.g., results of searching environment-related terms in Bulbapedia) in order to provide evidence of escalation of environmental thoughts in Pokémon and overall video game industry. This paper would also benefit from a wider focus beyond only main English-language video game releases to include shows, movies, and other pop culture impacts to definitively analyze increasing environmentalism within the Pokémon brand.
Notes that would improve the paper (specific edits, grammar, etc…)
- Abstract, line 17: Is your focus on Pokémon the franchise, or “video game narratives”? Both are mentioned throughout the paper, but only video games appear in Figure 1.
- Abstract, line 18: You state you find both “greater and more explicit acknowledgment” – no results are shown to support this. Results that would be convincing are 1) more occurrences of environmental-related terminology in video game scripts or articles, and/or 2) more frequent (percentage of words) environmental references.
- Introduction, line 43: Should likely be “have they mirrored public discourse”.
- Methods: what defines a “main series” Pokémon game? How were the search terms chosen? How were queries performed (e.g., exact match, entry heading only, separate words vs combinations, etc…)? How are these search terms compared across timelines of public perception and climate policy? How is public perception of anthropogenic change measured? Why are major events in climate policy limited to IPCC Assessment Reports and UN decisions? There are many country-specific rulings that could be used here, including Japanese policy changes that may affect Pokémon development more than UN-specific decisions.
- Methods, line 51: Should likely be “anthropogenic climate change”
- Figure 1: Unclear on the relation between the antagonist motivations and climate-change related policies and events. Also, what scale are you using to define “escalation”? It is unclear how the 2006 motivation of “Destory the Universe and start again” has a lower escalation measure than the 2010 motivation of “Stop Pokémon fighting”, for example.
- Figure 1: “Pokemon” in Black/White(2010) label should be Pokémon
- Anthro-Pokécene, line 72: Observatory reference does not include pre-2004 papers, which therefore invalidates the claim “climate change was not the most central environmental topic in virtually all discourse”, as there is no data in the reference to support or deny this.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 75-76: The Red/Yellow/Blue series is singled out for being different because it was completed before the Kyoto Protocol, but in Figure 1, it has the same theme as the Gold/Silver series. Why do you distinguish between pre- and post-Kyoto game development in this case?
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 78-86: The Kaliroff citiation, in addition to being an un-peer reviewed opinion article, does not include any direct quotes or other direct evidence linking Isahaya Tidal Flats to Ruby/Spphire game development. I agree there could be a link between the two, but the direct relationship implied by this paragraph is misleading.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 88-97: Once again, I agree that there is an environmentalist leaning to the Alola and Galar settings, but the link between them and the Paris Agreement is circumstantial at best.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 99-108: COP26 was in 2021 – how does the title of this summit apply to the motivations of the developers for a game released in 2013? If you are arguing for the escalation of environmental meaning across Pokemon games, then a direct link between a Pokémon game in 2013 and a UN summit in 2021 should be provided.
- Anthro-Pokécene, lines 123-131: It is worth noting that dystopian video games are often the opposite of nihilistic and can be hopeful & progressive – for example, see Perez-Latorre & Oliva’s 2017 analysis of Bioshock Infinite. The Change citation covers the usefulness of exploring and modeling future worlds, but only covers one side without exploring how we as an audience are meant to interact with dystopic games as well.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-2024-2-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Lewis Alcott, 13 Aug 2024
The comment was uploaded in the form of a supplement: https://gc.copernicus.org/preprints/gc-2024-2/gc-2024-2-AC2-supplement.pdf
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 541 | 140 | 29 | 710 | 18 | 21 |
- HTML: 541
- PDF: 140
- XML: 29
- Total: 710
- BibTeX: 18
- EndNote: 21
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1