Please make the main games good again
Comments
-
The advantages are making the game less of a grindfest slog,
Do you not like catching Pokémon? Do you consider that part of the game a slog? Why not simply choose to not catch them all instead of removing them from the game entirely?
Furthermore, I don't think most people are asking for every single Pokémon to be catchable in every single game. Just to be transferable so they can use them if they do want them.
making favorite pokemon more special by rotating them around,
That would make them feel more special, but is there no other way to do that?
Making them rarer in game or transfer only would also make them special to a degree.
You could give them new forms if caught in the new game. Or new colour pallettes. Why are we limited to base and shiny only? Has technology not advanced since the Game Boy Color to the point that we can have more than two color pallettes per character? Fighting games often provide dozens.
encouraging players to make entirely new teams rather than relying on the same handful of mons every single time, giving new mons time to shine and not be overshadowed by old favorites, etc.
Prevent transfers until after beating the game. Then they will be forced to use only the ones available in the game, including the new ones.
If you are talking about competitve, it is possible to ban certain mons if they are overused or overpowered.
Or have multiple formats. Have a current-game-only cup, a limited-roster cup, an everything-goes cup, etc.
Less can be more in some circumstances, but I do not see the exclusion of certain portions of the full Pokédex from newer games as anything more than a corner cutting measure, and the defences of the practice being anything more than excuses and post-hoc rationalisation. "Some Pokémon are excluded from the new games, therefore it must be good or desirable that they were excluded."
I generally think it is better to include more content and let players opt out of the content they do not wish to engage with than to cut content and say "tough" to those who wanted it.
1 -
Because heaven forbid people actually have their own opinions on things?
Of course you are allowed to have your own opinion on things. That was never disputed. By all means, have at it.
But it is not much of a discussion if we just vacantly post our opinions without engaging with and exploring those of others.
And if you don't want to discuss it, why are you on a forum? What you would want in that case would be a blog.
Again, I can't think of any collectable monster series that has every mon in every game.
So what? What does that mean?
If Pokémon tried to put all the Pokémon back in the next game, should they be stopped because other games don't do it?
Would you be upset if they did? Would you oppose it?
I am not attacking you or trying to "own" you. I am legitimately trying to understand your mindset.
Do you accept fewer Pokémon in games because it is the current state of affairs, or is it something you actively desire?
And why?
2 -
Except you're not "discussing". You're accusing others of whatever buzzwords you can think of because you can't stand the notion that people would ever actually like these things.
I don't want all 1000plus mons in one game. It would be too full, too heavy. Even limiting the old ones to the postgame, you'd still only be adding them as a token, as filler, without meaning.
0 -
You're accusing others of whatever buzzwords you can think of because you can't stand the notion that people would ever actually like these things.
You can like things. I am glad that you do. I cannot, nor do I want to, take that away from you.
I don't know how much more unambiguous I can make it.
Disagreeing with you is not an attack. It is not inherently done with hate, anger or malice. Just as someone agreeing with you or giving you what you want is necessarily your friend or has your best interests at heart.
I don't want all 1000plus mons in one game. It would be too full, too heavy. Even limiting the old ones to the postgame, you'd still only be adding them as a token, as filler, without meaning.
You are saying this would make the game too bloated? Too much content to meaningfully engage with?
That may well be true for you, but not everyone else feels the same way. Look at all of the hours of video of people catching Pokémon on YouTube as one example.
Pokédex completion challenges. Shiny capture challenges. Speedruns. Just to name a few.
Between multiple playthroughs, those people have probably caught and collected multiple thousands of Pokémon. Do you not think those people would appreciate having more Pokémon to catch? Having a greater variety of possible challenges?
And the people who upload and stream Pokémon content may be a small niché group, but what about the people watching? Some of those videos get hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of views.
Even if they don't engage with it in game or play themselves, clearly there is a large community with an appetite for this content.
And putting aside the sheer quantity of Pokémon and content, what about all the people whose favourites are cut from the roster in any given game? With only 400-odd Pokémon per game out of over a thousand, an increasing number of people are going to miss out.
I wouldn't say those two examples are "token, filler, without meaning".
If the games had the full Pokédex, people like you who do not have interest in catching them all could catch only the Pokémon you like or want, or the bare minimum needed to complete the game or compete in whatever tournaments you wish, and leave it at that.
Meanwhile the people who do want more to catch could have access to the full Pokédex. No one's favourite Pokémon would potentially be missing from the game.
Is that not a win-win? I do not see what you lose if the games had more content. But people are clearly losing out on content they consider meaningful with the limited Pokédex and the current state of affairs.
1 -
I mean, Scarlet and Violet sure do have their problems... but I don't believe they intentionally mucked it up. They do want to make good games, but there are many reasons why it's not always possible... many of those reasons, we probably do not even know about... but Legends Arceus is great... like, they hit it out of the park with that one... so, they can and are still making good games.
1 -
My favorite isn't in this game and I don't care. I only got to actually USE it once anyway, in HGSS. Anything else it comes too lategame.
People tune in to watch a lot of shiny catching streams, shiny dex completion, etc. If all these channels were to seek out shinies of all 1000+ mons, don't you think the audience would dry up? There wouldn't be any variety any more. It would be reduced to a multi-year slog.
I never said I don't have an interest in "catching them all". Just what "them all" means should vary from game to game.
1 -
"My favorite isn't in this game and I don't care"
Well, you know, that's like, your opinion, man.
Some of us enjoy competitive battliing using EXCLUSIVELY the 'mons we like the most.
I've had the same Pokémon team since 2013. The same team (for the most part). I've changed 1 or 2 over the years, but the rest has remained, and the overall strategy has remained.
That team btw, includes Mr. Mime and Shedinja.
I haven't been able to use that team in a new mainline Pokémon game since the Switch came out.
Why? Well, GameFreak never gave us the reason. They said it was because they were going to remake the animations for all Pokémon, to give us "high-quality animations", and that it would be too much work to make such animations for all Pokémon.
And yet. IT WASN'T EVEN TRUE!!! THEY LITERALLY RECYCLED THE POKÉMON ANIMATIONS FROM SUN & MOON!!!
You are defending choices that were justified with literally nothing but lies from the side of GameFreak.
It was corner-cutting. If it wasn't, how come they didn't tell us the truth? They invented a narrative about remaking the animations to make them high-quality, and then they didn't even do it. They didn't even do THE ONE thing that supposedly was preventing them from including those Pokémon. Highest-grossing media franchise of all time btw.
For that reason (for not including those Pokémon) I realized that I wouldn't have any fun battling online, and thus there was no reason for me to purchase the game (as online-battling is the most fun part of the main series games. If I want a good story I'd play the Mystery Dungeon games, as the quality of the story in the main games, doesn't come even slightly close to that of Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Explorers of Sky, for example).
Many of the people I know have refused to purchase the new games for that exact same reason. One of my best friends says she dropped the idea of playing Scarlet & Violent the moment she knew that Skitty was not in the game.
Again, just because you don't want to catch them all (which you wouldn't HAVE to anyways) you want others not to be able to have their favorites in tha game? What sort of nonsensical, narcissistical logic is that?
If "making them meaningful" was the actual reason why they aren't including all Pokémon, then GameFreak would have said so, instead of lying to their playerbase (which they did). Lying about the reason really doesn't suggest some altruistic philosophy behind the dex-cutting decisions. Quite the opposite.
2
