Three's Demise

A popular saying states that "two's company, three's a crowd". The saying could also be said to be true of Triple Battles and Rotation Battles in the main series of Pokémon games, both of which feature three Pokémon from each side, and are vastly different from the Double Battles of VGC. After two generations of being present in various games, the two battle forms disappeared in the games of the next generation. In one sense, this could be understandable, but in another, it could be construed as a bit of a shame.

Both of these three-Pokémon-a-side battle forms were introduced in the fifth generation and promoted at certain points in the games. The Triple Battle is simply an extension of the Double Battle with one more Pokémon on each side, and thus much of the same stipulations as Double Battles apply, with additional consequences for certain situations. The Rotation Battle is much like a Single Battle with the additional ability of quickly changing to another Pokémon while at the same time attacking, introducing an element of uncertainty. Both of these battle forms were promoted in various parts of the games of the fifth and sixth generations, and then became unavailable in the seventh generation.

One thing that may have contributed in the deprecation of these battle forms is the lag experienced in seventh-generation games. It is known that even with Double Battles in the seventh-generation games, there is a noticeable lag; were Triple and Rotation Battles implemented, the lag would probably be even more noticeable, perhaps to the point of unplayability - and thus the two forms had to be sacrificed. Meanwhile, complexity may have also played a role in affecting player's perceptions of the battle forms. Since the Triple Battle is basically a Double Battle plus two more Pokémon, it becomes like a double-sided Double Battle with all its implications. Further, the rotation aspect to Rotation Battles may not have been enough to resolve players' quibbles with the Single Battle form, as they are similar. The weight of complexity (or lack thereof) combined with system limits then led to the casting out of these battle forms.

Still, three Pokémon on the field on each side represents a natural expansion from two, which means that half of a team could be present in battle; depending on the setting, this could lead to varied strategies. In Triple Battles, for example, the strongest Pokémon could be put in the middle, while two that are not as strong can handle adversaries on the sides. And in Rotation Battles, surprises could be realized as rotations and attacks occur simultaneously. These are unique circumstances with equally unique strategies that don't happen in other battle forms, and it's a shame that these can't be further fleshed out.

Whatever the case, it seems clear that three-Pokémon-a-side on the field may be a bit too much to handle for the current system and the players. In that way, three really is a crowd when it comes to Pokémon battling, and the effect is that "three" met its demise in the seventh generation, and "two" became "company" once again, being the prime format for VGC battling. It may take time for sensibilities to change and systems to advance before the battles of three may become acceptable as "company" again.