![screen_shot_2012-08-23_at_5.33.58_pm[1].png](https://i.imgur.com/AEGAQDK.png "screen_shot_2012-08-23_at_5.33.58_pm[1].png")
Would you still consider S&M Gen 7 if it had no new starters? If yes, why?
>>25414850
Yes, because starters don't define a gen. New pokedex entries do (in short, pokemon that are new and not forms or megas.)
>>25414850
Because there are new Pokémon. There's no such thing as a half generation. One of the last movies also reveals the next generation's Pokémon, in this case it's Magearna.
If it takes place in a whole new region with a bunch of new pokemon and new moves and it doesn't run on xy engin and isn't directly compatible with gen 6, its a new gen
>>25414862
But there have always been new Pokemon within a Gen that were not coded into other, earlier games from that Gen.
>>25414877
Not true. New form(e)s, yes, new Pokémon (as defined by having their own dex number), no. Never.
>>25414868
>http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Acid_rain
But ORAS and XY aren't even completely compatible with each other. They had new Mega Evolutions that were not in XY, so "new Pokemon" isn't exactly a qualifier anymore.
>>25414850
If you can still battle and trade between SM and XY/ORAS with only restrictions about the new mons, megas, forms then it's still gen 6, otherwise it's gen 7
>>25414850
>S&M
stopped reading there
>>25414877
Untrue.
>>25414889
formes are not new Pokémon. Megas are formes.
>>25414877
Where the hell did you get this idea?
>>25414877
-Mew was coded into all Gen I games.
-Celebi was coded into all Gen II codes.
-Jirachi/Deoxys were coded into all Gen III games.
-Phione/Manaphy/Darkrai/Shaymin/Arceus were coded into all Gen IV games.
-Victini/Keldeo/Meloetta/Genesect were coded into all Gen V games.
-Diancie/Hoopa/Volcanion were coded into all Gen VI games.
The only things they've ever added (starting with Platinum) have been formes and Mega Evolutions, which share a Pokédex number and don't count.
>>25414850
>filename
WHAT'S THE MOVIE
>>25414891
So Gold and Silver are Gen 1.5?
>>25414888
>>25414902
But if they planned on holding back half of Gen 6 so they'd have new Pokemon for Sun and Moon, these "rules" don't mean anything anymore.
>>25414908
No, new starters = New Gen, No new starters = No New Gen.
>>25414850
Because ORAS. The Pokemon introduced there are 6.5.
Which would make this one 6.6 or something... if you lucky because a new regain and Dex makes it 7 dumb arse.
>>25414916
Actually believing this = autism
>>25414974
The autistic autists who call other autistic autists autistic autists are the autistic autists, you autistic autist!
>>25414974
Name a time when this theory has been proven false
>>25414994
Now this is autistic
>>25414996
You're retarded. There's never been a half generation so this isn't applicable. Sequels and enhanced/third versions are the same generation and region and that's why they had the same starters.
>>25414850
>new starter town has Zafari Zone in it
>dad/mom/rival/waifu/prof/evil team boss guy/gym leader/mysterious stranger who turns out the be the champion/etc takes you there and hands you one ball (that will of course work as well as a masterball)
>you can catch whatever critter you like and begin your travels with it
>>25415018
Sun and Moon DO feature the same region as X and Y, just expanded, as has has been with all third version games. Whether or not all the Pokemon of a Generation can actually be found in every game's code has nothing to do with it.
>>25415018
How am I retarded? All I asked was for you to give an example of a time when "new starters =/= new generation" or "no starters = new generation." All I am saying is that there is no current example that disproves the idea that "new starters=new generation," I never said anything about gen 6.5
>>25415045
This.
Also, don't forget that Gen VI was the first time the series was in 3D, so they couldn't introduce too many new Pokemon at once as there were too many faggots around crying for their favorite Gen 1-5 Pokemon in 3D, thus undermining the impact of the new Pokemon.
So splitting the Release of Gen VI Pokemon into two halfes is actually pretty clever.
>>25415037
>Sun and Moon DO feature the same region as X and Y, just expanded, as has has been with all third version games.
You keep telling yourself that buddy.
>>25415023
This is the hypest shit, and would also serve as a "How to Catch Pokémon" tutorial thing. That would be awesome.
>>25414908
i think you failed at reading comprehension
>>25415045
but, waht if thsi gen (considering the list is real) you have no new starters, but you can choose of any starters any gen?
>>25415090
If this a new generation (and I think it will be) and has no new starters (which I think is unlikely) than that theory will be disproven. But for now, the concept of "new starters = new generation" is still a vaild argument.
I'd consider it Gen7 if the creators announced it as Gen7, and i'd consider it gen6.5 if they announced it as gen6.5
I mean, this isn't a fan term is it? they did use the term "generation" didn't they?
>>25414892
Why?
>>25414850
Actually this is a pretty simple way of defining generations.
So long as we still agree that ORAS is gen 6 because of the engine/forms/abilities etc it doesn't need to ammend any already established gens... except Yellow I guess. Hmm .
>>25415018
There's never been a half generation, because the term is so nebulous as to be essentially meaningless.
>>25415121
Like you said, Yellow has a 'new' starter, but wasn't a new generation.
Also ORAS didn't have new starters, unless you're saying each time you have starters different from the last game it's a new gen - in which case you'd need to make allowances for all the remakes.
>>25415182
Yeah. Hmm... I wonder if GF reads people's definitions of gems and purposefully blurs lines like that.
>>25415090
>>25415104
I don't think that a new Gen will feature no new starters, since Masuda once stated that there is more care put into the three starter Pokemon than in any other Pokemon (I don't know if he said combined, but I think so).
>>25415182
First Gen is mostly the exception to the rule, as it wasn't really a new starter ("new starter" always implies "never before seen pokemon", as in "new pokemon that also is a starter") and was mostly an anime tie-in, something we`ve seen never again from this point on. It wasn't even called "Pokemon Yellow" in Japan, and was called "Pokemon Special Pikachu Edition/Yellow Edition" here, firmly cementing its status as an anomaly.
>>25415222
I've seen people claim that if the new game has new starters, is set in a new region connected to Kalos and allows trading with X/Y and ORAS it'll still be gen 6.5 and when you point out that was G/S' relation to R/B/Y they say 'first gen is the exception'.
That said I agree that yellow is gen one and that if a game has a "new pokémon that also is a starter" it's a new gen.
>>25415292
No, they say "first gen is the exception" in regards to Pokemon Yellow. The comparison with Gold and Silver can't even be made within a serious discussion, as Gold and Silver featured new starters, and also didn't feature "East Kanto" as a new Region, but "Johto".
>>25415023
>gamefreak will never be smart enough to do this
>>25415330
As I said, I've seen them say it in regards to G/S/C...
So if it's a new region to the south and connected to Kalos called "South Kalos" it's the same gen, but if it's a new region to the south and connected to Kalso called "Skalos" it's not. Got it.
>>25415586
What the fuck is Kalso? Also, it's not just in the name. If the game states ingame that it's part of Kalos as a whole, then it's not a new region.
On the other hand, it could be called South Kalos and still be it's own region, just like North America and South America. I doubt it, though, since XY-Kalos was not called "North Kalos".
>>25415113
Cuz its Moonsoon, not S&M
>>25414850
>New region
>New Pokemans
>New gen
It's not that complicated
Yes, because of her.
>>25416037
But what if it had no new region but new starters?
>>25414911
How retarded are you?
>>25415870
Really?
you're gonna disregard someone for using a different (more accepted) expression than you do?
