Couple of questions for you guys:
>Are the # of Mon's in a Gen Indicative of a Gen's overall Quality?
>>Do you think it shows that they're trying hard or do you just assume that more = better?
>Do you ever wonder what it would be like if they didn't add any new Pokemon in future gens? (or just took a break from adding mons)
>>Would you be okay with this if it meant a better Pokemon experience? Why or Why Not?
For me I think I'd be okay with less mons if it meant getting back to comfy roots (exploring the world rather than trying to save it all the time) and if they did a little more with Pokemon-Amie, contests, & brought back trainer customization. I don't wanna get too carried away since Nintendo handhelds are only capable of so much, but I don't think I'm really asking for a lot.
I agree. I mainly just want them to go through and apply some semblance of balance to the game. They need to fix old mons before they introduce a lot of new ones.
>>25669785
i actually think a gens number of mons is indicative of its quality in that the gens with more mons usually feel like they had the most effort.
there should be a viable main story play style focusing on contests instead of badges, with the goal of top coordinator/kalos queen type thing.
>>25669785
I could understand why there were fewer in X and Y. Every Pokemon had to be modeled to 3D from the ground up, so it's not like they had much time. But for S&M now, since they have all the models done, there's no excuse as to why there won't be at least over 100.
X/Y weren't even that "quality", though. Just give me a bunch of new fucking Pokemon. I couldn't care less about Charizard's 9000 forms.
>>25669833
Didn't know what other image to use, but I mean, people do seem to hate it because "unngh it had less Pokemon"
It's a flawed game and getting to the end so quick felt like a disappointment, but I don't think the # of mons had anything to do with it.
Gen V had both, quality and quantity, Please may SuMo be the same
>>25669785
>Are the # of Mon's in a Gen Indicative of a Gen's overall Quality?
No.
>Do you think it shows that they're trying hard or do you just assume that more = better?
I think limiting yourself helps increase quality. I love a lot of Gen 5 Pokémon but at the same time I feel some of the worse designs of that generation were because they needed to fill so many slots, while Gen 6 brought an higher quality from the average new Pokémon (assuming we aren't counting Megas, which would bring the whole thing down with how shitty some of them look).
I'd be okay with them making a new region and plot and such without any new Pokémon as long as it delivered the things I want from Pokémon, which is content. XY didn't give me the content I want despite the limited number of new designs, though you could blame that on the leap to 3D, so I'm not sure if forgoing new designs would give me what I want since they might put all that extra dev time to something dumb instead, or not put the time to anything and just have a shorter dev cycle like they did with ORAS.
>>25669853
>people do seem to hate it because "unngh it had less Pokemon"
There are many issues I have with XY, the number of new Pokémon are not one of them, if anything I'd shrink the regional Dexes as a whole just so the few XY Pokémon can shine more instead of having to etch a name for themselves competing with ~375 existing designs.
>>25669877
*by shrink the regional Dexes, I mean keep the 72 XY Pokémon but cut some of the older-Gen Pokémon from XY's regional Dexes.
>>25669870
>>25669877
I like you guys
>>25669893
I'm the same person in both of those posts.
>>25669862
Oldgenners didn't like V. They're probably going to continue from X/Y and pander to the old games. Maybe Johto this time.
>>25669903
I like you, then!
>>25669920
A-Anon
>>25669785
>Are the # of Mon's in a Gen Indicative of a Gen's overall Quality?
Not necessarily, while there weren't very many new species in X & Y, the huge number of pokemon on each route still made it really enjoyable to play.
>Do you think it shows that they're trying hard or do you just assume that more = better?
I think there should be more, but I guess mega evolutions have to be taken into consideration
>Do you ever wonder what it would be like if they didn't add any new Pokemon in future gens? (or just took a break from adding mons)
I guess a new region would be fine, but I still really like new pokemon. IMHO it would be cool if they could do so while creating interesting new storylines with existing legendaries that actually tied in to the plot of previous games (like B2&W2).
>Would you be okay with this if it meant a better Pokemon experience? Why or Why Not?
I wouldn't be ok with it, new pokemon games need new pokemon. If it was once, I would probably be able to let it fly & chalk it up as half way between a sequel and a new gen, but new pokemon are really necessary to keep pokemon fresh. In fact, I can ignore so many flaws in a pokemon game if they have new pokemon that I like. I didn't like gen 5 starters, so I didn't enjoy the start as much as I did gen 4, where I liked them much more. playing through the game with a party I like is a huge part of what I enjoy in pokemon games.
>>25669785
Eventually I think it will start getting a bit crazy, it's already a bit crazy considering the number of shitmons around
Though in a game like Pokemon more is almost always better
I really liked what Black & White did limiting you to the new mons at first so you can get a feel for them, made me appreciate them more than I did the Pokemon in gen 4 or 6 where the majority of Pokemon I caught were older ones
>>25669911
I don't see why, it's the only game so far to emulate the spirit of the first game without outright pandering to it
>>25669987
idk if I'd consider myself a oldgenner, but the only thing I remembered about BW/BW2 was N & finding some kid's Purrloin. I'm not really sure what people mean when they say that it recaptured some of Pokemon's original magic.
>>25669987
>without outright pandering to it
Well there you go anon, you explained why they don't like it. It's similar in spirit but it doesn't directly copy things that happen in it, so they don't care. XY directly references Genwun in many places, which is why they like it more.
>>25669911
>Oldgenners didn't like V
been playing since red and white is my favorite game.
>>25669987
They didn't outright pander to it and shove Charizard's cock down your neck so no one realised it.
>>25670036
Great music and locations
Loved the gym battles, especially the battles in general all being fairly difficult compared to previous games. Characters had some purpose, the only ones who annoyed me were the "friends" but even they left you alone fairly quick after the initial wank.
Lots of secrets in game all around
Lots of new Pokemon
And it was a pretty long game as well, especially when you consider BW2 as the sequel, the only game to get a proper sequel rather than just a "remastering"
My only complaint was how linear black and white were for the most part coming off of Sinnoh especially, but I did like how every area had a ton of places to revisit later and explore with new HMs
>>25670092
Actually I guess Gold/Silver were basically direct sequels to Red/Blue as well
