I find it really odd that the new games will be compatible with gen 1 games. It's not like there's any pokémon we couldn't get with XY or ORAS.
What if the reason is that SM will actually follow gen 1 mechanics/graphics in an attempt to grab the attention of older players?
I know, we already saw the 3D model for the woodpecker, but we could still have one version with upgraded graphics and the other with a retro style. If that's the case, which one would you chose?
>>25528258
no its for rare moves like fissure machamp
>>25528258
Or they could've, y'know, re-released the old games for the 20th anniversary?
>>25528258
>What if the reason is that SM will actually follow gen 1 mechanics
/vp/'s had some dumb ideas, but holy shit
>>25528258
If by "Follow Gen 1 mechanics" you mean a glitchfest, then maybe.
>>25528258
What if you didn't suggest literally the most unlikely and retarded thing possible as if you actually believed it had any chance of happening?
>>25528258
Older players don't care about Gen 1 mechanics, they care about Gen 1 Pokemon.
Have you never encountered a genwunner before? They don't go on about how they want Focus Energy to be broken, they talk about how Charizard and Pikachu and all the old pokemon are the only true pokemon.
>>25528265
Wouldn't Pokébank not allow it to pass through due to weird moveset?
>>25528352
They'll update it or else there would be no point since so many gen 1 pokemon have janky movesets.
>>25528286
Yeah, that was kind of a stretch, but letting pokémon from gen 1 games migrate to gen 7 with weird movesets is also a weird choice.
Gen 3 was not that great, but making them incompatible with gen 1 and 2 was a good decision. Why would they give up on that at this point?
>>25528258
>What if the reason is that SM will actually follow gen 1 mechanics/graphics in an attempt to grab the attention of older players?
You're kidding, right? Because there is literally zero chance of that.
>>25528374
It was to get people to buy the VC releases instead of emulating. Nintendo will never officially acknowledge it, but they know damn well anyone can emulate Gen 1 on pretty much any device.
>>25528374
>but making them incompatible with gen 1 and 2 was a good decision
I don't think that was on purpose, anon
>>25528417
This. It wasn't on purpose, they just needed to do an overhaul of the IV/EV system.
>>25528338
I myself am an older player. I tried gen 1 again and didn't find it that enjoyable anymore, mainly because of the mechanics (no physical/special split, no sp def, wrong weakness/resistances. And what were they thinking when they made Wrap work like that???).
But I like the old graphics, it would be nice to play a new game (with current mechanics) but old visuals.
>>25528430
Ok, even it wasn't on purpose, it avoided buggy pokémon from being imported from old games and gave them a reason to make FRLG later
>>25528352
>a move it can legally learn in the game it came from
>weird
They only block illegal moves anon. If they allow transfers from gen I then all moves exclusive to gen I will become legal by default. They didn't block any exclusive moves from gen 3-5 from being transferred, why would they start now?
I think Reflect is the only gen 1 exclusive move that's useful beyond novelty factor (unless they actually allow No Guard Fissure Machamp). Being able to transfer gen 1 Pokemon to gen 7 is more just for the sake of getting to use your team in newer games.
>Option to play Retro
Take my money
