Welcome to the official Pokémon Forums!

Click here to review our official Rules & Guidelines.

Why did Dexit Really Happen?

2

Answers

  • RiqMoran
    RiqMoran Member Posts: 231 ✭✭✭
    100 Comments 25 Likes 5 Answers 25 Agrees

    I don't see game balance as a good justification either. Competitive players feel free to chime in about how much better balanced the metagame has been since SWSH. And isn't the entire point of the Regulation "x" formats to cherrypick what pokemon are allowed to be used competitively? There is no need to also keep pokemon from being playable in game if you can simply ban them from competitive play, as evidenced by the existence of numerous such pokemon usable in game but restricted in comp format.

    In a similar vein, another popular justification is the lowered requirements for obtaining the shiny charm. As someone who just picked up shiny hunting, this is a welcome change, but limiting playable pokemon is merely coincidental and not requisite to that end. This is evidenced by the existence of playable pokemon which are not required to obtain the shiny charm, because they're just not part of the regional dex.

  • Flametix
    Flametix Member Posts: 558 ✭✭✭
    500 Comments 100 Likes 100 LOLs 100 Agrees

    @RiqMoran The regulations don't really have anything to do with Dexit. The purpose of the first 3 regulations was to regulate the new Paradox Pokemon and Treasures of Ruin, which is irrelevant to Dexit since they're new Pokemon to the generation. Regulation D, the first one since Home transfers were allowed, doesn't feature any specific bans other than the restricted legendaries, which has been the usual online ruleset for over a decade since Gen 5's random matchmaking, and the 3v3 ruleset dates back to Gen 3's Battle Tower and the original Nintendo Cups played in Japan.

    I thought it is obvious that the shiny charm wasn't the main reason for dexit either since Sun and Moon already lowered that requirement by removing the National Dex in the first place.

  • TheJeffers
    TheJeffers Member Posts: 1,336 ✭✭✭✭✭
    500 Agrees 1000 Comments 250 Likes 250 LOLs


    They do not have to remake every single Pokémon from scratch for every game. Was that not supposed to be the point of making HD models for each Pokémon back in gen 7, even though the games were on the 3DS?

    I do not think that many people would object if some older Pokémon not catchable in game had their assets imported from the previous generations. As long as they were usable and transferable. Far preferable to not making them compatible with the games at all.

    And I think you are vastly overestimating how much space each Pokémon's assets actually take on the game files. Scarlet and Violet do not even use the largest available Switch cartridges.

    Your criticism regarding poor loading might be accurate but that might say more about Gamefreak's pool coding and optimisation practices than the limits of the hardware. The game does not (or at least, should not) need to load every single asset on the cartridge when starting the game.

    And we are talking about the same hardware that can run games like Tears of the Kingdom and Xenoblade. Compare the look of those game worlds and what they have to load compared to Scarlet and Violet.

  • D-ManBlue
    D-ManBlue Member Posts: 383 ✭✭✭
    100 Agrees 100 Comments 5 Answers 25 Likes

    @TheJeffers Let's also not forget that the fact that they DID create HD models for each Pokemon from the era of 2D sprites doesn't lend a whole lot of credibility to the idea that updating the models would have been all that much work, certainly not enough to warrant blocking Pokemon from the game.

  • puplover1118
    puplover1118 Member Posts: 531 ✭✭✭
    500 Comments 100 Agrees 5 Answers 25 LOLs

    @Flametix when the Isle of Armor first came out, Game Freak decided to ban the most popular Pokémon in the format for a time, and I believe Chatot was banned in gen 4, so the regulations can, in fact, ban Pokémon other than legendaries, and selectively, too.

  • Flametix
    Flametix Member Posts: 558 ✭✭✭
    500 Comments 100 Likes 100 LOLs 100 Agrees

    My main point was that the Regulation formats in SV have not been cherrypicking specific bans like RiqMoran claimed, and Regulation D has been following the same rules that we've always had. The SWSH ladder you're talking about was one of its special gimmick seasons called Series 6, and this concept dates back to XY where Battle Spot Special Season 6 originally banned the top 20 used pokemon, or Season 4 where the ladder used Inverse Battle rules. The difference between these gimmick ladders and SV's regulations is that official events like Worlds are actually played under Regulation D, while no official VGC event was ever played under Series 6's rules since they kept playing on Series 5 and skipped to 7 when the Crown Tundra dropped.

    The Chatot ban was also there unchanged for the entirety of Generation 5 and was more about stopping Chatter from going online rather than balancing the game.

  • RiqMoran
    RiqMoran Member Posts: 231 ✭✭✭
    100 Comments 25 Likes 5 Answers 25 Agrees

    The point is moot. The fact remains that balance can be achieved without the need of culling the list of mons playable in offline because rulesets can restrict any pokemon from competition.

    You don't need to amputate to take off your shoes.

  • Flametix
    Flametix Member Posts: 558 ✭✭✭
    500 Comments 100 Likes 100 LOLs 100 Agrees

    In theory it would be nice to have a ruleset that banned certain overused and centralizing Pokemon, but in practice the official VGC events have never bothered to do so and that's how you end up with everyone using the same CHALK team.