Status
Not open for further replies.

Bomblord

Self-requested ban
Banned
Jan 11, 2018
6,390
So I know this has been a big stink and I completely understand the arguments that it's less content, that many preferred pokemon were cut, and that Gamefreaks reasoning behind it is less than spectacular. That on top of other issues like the Pokemon bank etc etc. I'm not saying any of those issues are wrong or unfounded however I've been actually excited about the restricted roster.

The reason that I actually prefer having less Pokemon in this game? Well that's simply my biggest issue with recent Pokemon games in general. There are too may freakin' Pokemon! Before this generation there were a whopping 809 Pokemon and this gen added another 94 (including Galarian forms) for a grand total of 903. I've been complaining about there being too many to keep up with since about gen 5 this has been getting head dizzingly worse for 4 generations now. I can't keep up with them all. I can't recognize half of them, there are too many strong pokemon, there are too many weak pokemon, because of this knowing a good mon from a weak one is a crapshoot where they used to be easily recognizable, I'm still seeing new Pokemon from previous generations despite playing all of them except B/W2 and S/M2, base stats have become derivative, The meta game has become dizzinglingly complex (only partially because of the sheer number), and last and probably most importantly, the original goal of "catching them all" has become all but a pipe-dream to do legitimately (GTS did help this it was also riddled with hackers) and has gone from something difficult but achievable to just insane.

My personal preference would have been some kind of soft reboot but cutting half the Pokemon actually still scratches that itch.
 
Last edited:

MP!

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,198
Las Vegas
yeah but for those of us who already causght one of each ... we look forward to the new mon.

that being said ... I was pleasantly surprised with the amount of new pokemon right off the bat in the first area... full party of never before seen monsters is exciting.
 

Lord Azrael

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,976
Your complaints don't make sense. No one was asking for all ~900 Pokémon to be obtainable in game, people just wanna be able to transfer them over. This is how it's always worked up till now - have a subset available in-game, trade the rest over if so you choose.
 

Watta92

Member
Nov 8, 2019
75
I agree that pokemon should stay as far away from the ss as possible :p

No seriously i think that a combi of old a new is awesome especcialy because gamefreak is probably never gonna cut pikachu
 

Jessie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,921
There's the same number as Ultra Sun and Moon. Cutting postgame Pokémon doesn't make your gameplay experience better.
 

Deleted member 58846

User requested account closure
Banned
Jul 28, 2019
5,086
I think the culling of the National Dex is not the problem, it is a symptom of the larger problem, which is that there are cutbacks everywhere, indicating that these games, much like every game since the end of the DS era, have not had the development time they need.
 

SageShinigami

Member
Oct 27, 2017
30,821
Your complaints don't make sense. No one was asking for all ~900 Pokémon to be obtainable in game, people just wanna be able to transfer them over. This is how it's always worked up till now - have a subset available in-game, trade the rest over if so you choose.

Yeah I was gonna say, isn't the problem that you can't even trade old ones in?
 

BDS

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,845

anigif_sub-buzz-18780-1512852797-6.gif
 
Oct 25, 2017
19,639
How many people catch all of the Pokemon every time anyway?

As we get closer and closer to 1000 creatures, how can anyone reasonably expect a place and balance for all of them? There has a to be a breaking point where no, it may very well be impossible to balance/place/account for all 1000 monsters in 1 game. The SS fiasco seemed inevitable.
 

DontHateTheBacon

Unshakable Resolve
Member
Oct 27, 2017
11,065
I'm with you.

Too many Pokémon were just completely worthless additions in the past where you had no hope of actually making them anything above serviceable.

I'm down for fewer Pokémon, in general, and honestly, I'm really down if it means they're made better/stronger/more viable. Not sure if that's the case in SW/SH because I'm still playing DeathStranding but I'm excited to play as soon as I roll credits.

In general, I would like fewer, more viable Pokémon. Also newer moves and culling of older moves that are just so overpowered that you can't afford to NOT use them.

I guess what I'm saying is stop dragging 21 year old baggage into every new entry.
 

Jessie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,921
You haven't had to "catch em all" to complete the national dex since 2013. Pokémon Sun and Moon and the Ultra revisions gave you the completion reward at 300 and 400 Pokémon respectively.
 

unfashionable

Member
Oct 29, 2017
2,075
As someone who isnt a pokemon fan I agree just never posted this opinion in one of the many threads where its such an unpopular opinion

Many of the "dumbing down" things with this game make it more appealing to me as someone who likes RPGs but found old pokemon games overwhelming
 

Zomba13

#1 Waluigi Fan! Current Status: Crying
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,105
Your complaints don't make sense. No one was asking for all ~900 Pokémon to be obtainable in game, people just wanna be able to transfer them over. This is how it's always worked up till now - have a subset available in-game, trade the rest over if so you choose.
The complaint is not being able to have them in the game at all. I don't think anyone ever expects to be able to catch ALL Pokémon in a single gen duo but people do want the option of carrying over pokémon they've had since Ruby and Sapphire over.

I totally understand OPs feeling of there being too many to catch 'em all, but you never could do that in a single generation, you always had to transfer or trade or wait till remakes came out to get missing ones. Completing the regional dex has always been doable (with some trading for exclusives) and that has always been the case with the games.
 
Oct 27, 2017
43,221
Your complaints don't make sense. No one was asking for all ~900 Pokémon to be obtainable in game, people just wanna be able to transfer them over. This is how it's always worked up till now - have a subset available in-game, trade the rest over if so you choose.
This

How many people catch all of the Pokemon every time anyway?

As we get closer and closer to 1000 creatures, how can anyone reasonably expect a place and balance for all of them? There has a to be a breaking point where no, it may very well be impossible to balance/place/account for all 1000 monsters in 1 game. The SS fiasco seemed inevitable.
This is under the assumption the pokemon that did made the cut have been rebalanced in someway. Aside from being able to learn the new moves, they're the same as before. Only including a subset doesn't automatically balance those that made it, nor is there any indication the ones chosen were for the sake of balance (using whatever metric there is to determine that)
 
Oct 26, 2017
213
Could Pokemon sword/shield have worked with the base red/blue number and using that same game throughout the life of the Switch and get DLC with each gen on a regular interval?
 

PKrockin

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,260
All those extra Pokemon only come into play in the postgame. People who casually follow the series or are just getting into it are likely to drop the game before finishing it or finish the game and not bother doing postgame stuff. People who stick with the postgame do so because they're interested in the battle system and more technical aspects, since the postgame is entirely that. This way, people who just want a chill Pokemon adventure experience aren't overwhelmed by the number of Pokemon.

Seems like theoretically, rather than casual players who are unlikely to even see the non-national Pokemon, we should be listening to what the more dedicated fans want from the postgame. They're the ones who play it and spend hundreds/thousands of hours assembling teams with all these legacy Pokemon and battling online, I imagine.
 

Masoyama

Attempted to circumvent a ban with an alt account
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
5,648
Yeah. One of the main reasons I bought the game is because its smaller and simpler. Gimme Pokemon games with 200 Pokemon please.
 

NotLiquid

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
35,128
I think the culling of the National Dex is not the problem, it is a symptom of the larger problem, which is that there are cutbacks everywhere, indicating that these games, much like every game since the end of the DS era, have not had the development time they need.
I agree in theory. Hypothetically if cutting older crew meant that more dev time and attention could be spent elsewhere to improve the quality of the game itself then I'd see it as a fair trade off. It's debatable whether SwSh reaches that though, what with are some clear signs of development woes, and even though I enjoy the game I can't deny that it's not the best it can be given the circumstances. The fact that they consider this a philosophy change in general would have me hope at least that the next generation won't see any similar hurdles now that they're more acclimated with HD development.
 

Jessie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,921
Yeah. One of the main reasons I bought the game is because its smaller and simpler. Gimme Pokemon games with 200 Pokemon please.

This is a fair opinion. Gold and Silver had 251 and it felt perfect.

But you're all missing the fact that the national dex has nothing to do with your gameplay experience.
 

L.O.R.D

Member
Oct 26, 2017
5,706
can anyone explain to me this? i know that both games doesn't include all the pokemon, however can i bring them from pokemon home/bank in the future?
or the missing pokemon can't be even in the game because their data is not available?
 

Mary Celeste

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,538
I agree with you OP, the cuts have allowed me to really jump back in after missing out on the last decade of games. I understand peoples complaints and they have legitimate reason to feel slighted, but personally I'm happy with the decision
 

Deleted member 58846

User requested account closure
Banned
Jul 28, 2019
5,086
I agree in theory. Hypothetically if cutting older crew meant that more dev time and attention could be spent elsewhere to improve the quality of the game itself then I'd see it as a fair trade off. It's debatable whether SwSh reaches that though, what with are some clear signs of development woes, and even though I enjoy the game I can't deny that it's not the best it can be given the circumstances. The fact that they consider this a philosophy change in general would have me hope at least that the next generation won't see any similar hurdles now that they're more acclimated with HD development.
Right. I think issues such as the culling of the GTS, or the removal of the day/night cycle outside of the Wild Area, does point to a tumultuous and troubled development cycle. I think the games are still great, mostly because the core Pokemon formula is dang hard to mess up, and because additions like the Wild Area are legitimately fantastic, but I do hope they reassess how they approach development of these games going forward. At the very least they need longer development cycles.
 

skillzilla81

"This guy are sick"
The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
10,193
I would never advocate for less content, even if I don't mind the amount we get. You don't need to use everything that's there, but it's always nice to have the option for people who want to.
 

NotLiquid

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
35,128
can anyone explain to me this? i know that both games doesn't include all the pokemon, however can i bring them from pokemon home/bank in the future?
or the missing pokemon can't be even in the game because their data is not available?
You won't be able to move any Pokémon from Home into SwSh unless they're a part of Galar's Dex (a little over 400 Pokémon are available in it). They straight up haven't been programmed into the game.
 

Doskoi Panda

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 27, 2017
15,316
Oh. It's this again. OP, if I'm being honest, I see your complaints here as overblown at best, and making something out of nothing at worst. I'm not phrasing it that way to be mean, they just are. They don't really hold up well against the facts.
Like... the meta tends to be well documented and isn't that hard to parse. You don't need to remember or recognize all of the Pokemon all of the time. You haven't had to catch every last Pokemon to 'catch them all' in well over half a decade, either.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 49535

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 10, 2018
2,825
Your complaints don't make sense. No one was asking for all ~900 Pokémon to be obtainable in game, people just wanna be able to transfer them over. This is how it's always worked up till now - have a subset available in-game, trade the rest over if so you choose.
This. It should be a non-issue for you.

I can only imagine this being a problem if you want to get into competitive, at which point you should just check what's good on some random website.
 

OrangeNova

Member
Oct 30, 2017
12,871
Canada
Yeah I have no problem with less being available in the game.

I have a problem with not being able to transfer them to the game.
 

Ultima_5

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,687
That's a very selfish reason

agreed. not to mention idiotic. completing the dex was completely optional, and being confused by to many pokemon is the same as being confused by brand new pokemon.

add in the fact every pokemon game prior had a base number of pokes, then the rest you could only get by transferring. i dont understand why so many people have trouble grasping what was removed from this game.
 

Jessie

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,921
I think most of you assume that the game would have 900 Pokémon running around in the routes, which is wrong.

It would've always had 400. It's just that the data for the other 500 would be in the game for people whose favorites happened to be one of those 500.
 

.exe

Member
Oct 25, 2017
22,473
It's not a dealbreaker for me either if it was compensated by significant improvements to the overall mechanics and stuff like animation quality. In fact, a narrower pool of competitively balanced Pokémon sounds reasonable to me. It had to happen at some point. In service of balance and improving this and that, they chose to focus on less Pokémon but higher fidelity and improved gameplay. That not having been the case in addition to moves being lost in the shuffle is just too baffling for me to get on board with.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 48897

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 22, 2018
13,623
If they have battles in whatever the 'pokemon home' stuff is supposed to be then I think the limited number of Pokemon expected to be caught for the sake of completion is a good thing. I love doing living dex completion and stuff like that, but it tends to involve a lot of grinding that's not very pleasant, and while doing it once or twice isn't so bad, it gets tiresome doing the same thing every generation mostly for that sake.

I think it is disappointing that well-loved specific Pokemon caught and brought along from one generation to the next can't be part of this game. My hope is that Pokemon Home will both have enough features and also have features related to Pokemon storage and interaction that aren't subscription based. The basic idea of making each game feel different rather than directly supercede the previous one in feature set is, I think, actually a great idea for the series and its ridiculous scope creep. I can quibble with how this plays out in practice (I do wish we got more partner pokemon outside of pokeballs) but as a high-level strategy I think it's a good one.

Also, I gotta be honest, I'm kinda happy that we're guaranteed to have a competitive scene that's not overrun with garchomp because I kind of hate garchomp
 

Wamb0wneD

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
18,735
Nobody wants 900+ Pokemon in their game to catch them all OP.

Nobody ever wanted that, and it was never a thing.
 

Deleted member 58846

User requested account closure
Banned
Jul 28, 2019
5,086
It's not a dealbreaker for me either if it was compensated by significant improvements to the overall mechanics and stuff like animation quality. That not having been the case in addition to moves being lost in the shuffle is just too baffling for me to get on board with.
If it helps, I think there definitely are improvements in the game in a lot of other areas, meaningful improvements to be clear.
 

elyetis

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,578
A non viable pokemon is still more playable than a pokemon you actually can't get into the game from transfer.

I was never interested in pvp so I don't know if they already did that, but they could also always choose separate pvp into two league with one of them only allowning the regional pokedex for a more balanced/streamlined experience.
 

Dongs Macabre

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,284
Then just limit official tournaments and stuff to Pokemon obtainable in the game if you care so much about the meta.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.