• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Would you be ok with Nintendo capping Pokémon at 1000

OP
OP
Typhon
Oct 25, 2017
1,764
#54
the cannon storyline would be that they were endangered species and then just went extinct... then they could come back in later games through fossils!
That doesn't eliminate their models from the game though which is the problem. They would have be removed completely.

nintendo has absolutely nothing to say about adding or removing pokemon.
They will if the game takes too long to make or becomes prohibitively expensive.
 
Oct 25, 2017
17,977
#55
No. And they should always do like B/W, only new Pokemon available till the end game
I'm fine with how 6 and 7 did it. Push the new mons, but have the old favorites on standby.

They pushed gen 5 only and wound up with the worst designs of the series and only had those to standby.
 
Oct 25, 2017
38,850
#60
Anything said after "Let's be honest" never ends well, and always carries this annoying implication that everyone's just lying to themselves.

No, I'm not cool with that at all. We keep going.
 
May 22, 2018
2,493
#61
That's a really stupid idea. New Pokemon have always been the biggest draw to new games, the series can't continue without them.
 
OP
OP
Typhon
Oct 25, 2017
1,764
#62
they had 800+ models on the 3ds, what makes you think the switch can't handle way more than that.
Storage will never be the problem. It's the amount of work involved . And games are more complicated graphically. Even at Nintendo's glacial pace of advancement that will become an issue too.
 
Oct 27, 2017
7,540
#64
if they stopped adding new Pokemon I guess I'd never need to buy a Pokemon game ever again

there's both good and bad in that
 
Dec 1, 2017
2,592
#65
I'm fine with how 6 and 7 did it. Push the new mons, but have the old favorites on standby.

They pushed gen 5 only and wound up with the worst designs of the series and only had those to standby.
Nope, BW2 is where the best balnce lies while gen six and seven gens have huge bias towards gen one pokemon, having more pokemon in the region than new ones.
 
Oct 27, 2017
985
North Carolina
#66
Storage will never be the problem. It's the amount of work involved . And games are more complicated graphically. Even at Nintendo's glacial pace of advancement that will become an issue too.
What, exactly, is extensive about using models that already exist for the express purpose of not needing to make new ones for a long time?
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,616
#67
They've future proofed the 3D Models and are now on stronger hardware, if anything, they have even more room to play with character models now than they did back on the 3DS.
 

Mekanos

Banned
Member
Oct 17, 2018
3,046
#72
Nope, BW2 is where the best balnce lies while gen six and seven gens have huge bias towards gen one pokemon, having more pokemon in the region than new ones.
Crazy that it’s been 7 years since BW2. The last truly excellent Pokémon game IMO.
 
Oct 25, 2017
16,967
#80
To do with your Pokemon, sure. I'm all for Pokemon contests and the like.
I don't think many here would complain about a Pokemon Snap quest line (not that weak shit that was in SM).

it doesn't have to involve your pokemon, but just involve them in a meaningful way. the Mantine Surf was a pretty cool idea, I think. too bad GF being GF won't bring that shit back
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,346
Ireland
#83
Its never been bloated since only a portion of existing Pokemon are in each region. I'd find it very hard to look forward to future pokemon games without new additions, they're the main thing to be excited about in a new generation.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,877
#88
New game, new Pokemon. That's what keeps it interesting.

They don't need to commit to supporting every single Pokemon every single gen though. Each new generation it's fine if only certain Pokemon make it in. As long as they rotate them and keep a nice balance of new and old.
 
Feb 8, 2018
3,710
#89
I hope people realize GF does cut Pokemon from games, as in, they don't make every single one of them available in a game. Just look at Glameow's availability for an extreme example of a Pokemon that barely exists in the wild. I don't know how many Pokemon exactly were available to catch in USUM, but it certainly wasn't 800.

So in practice, GF already does avoid bloating games with lots of Pokemon. Now, if what you're asking for is GF to excommunicate certain mons from the realm of canon, that's not going to happen.
 
Oct 25, 2017
4,522
#91
No. If anything, we should have 100+ new Pokemon per gen again instead of 80'ish.

Never


Why do y'all want to stop the Pokémon train man

"Remove some Pokémon"
"Stop at 1000"

This train ain't stopping you chumps

Choo choo
Maybe they want to (not so)secretly kill off this franchise.
 
Dec 1, 2017
2,592
#92
It really isn't that different.
Please, tell me how? Because BW2 has 151 gen five pokemon while every other gen is around 30-40 pokemon. A varied amount of pokemon, but gen five still has the spotlight on them. A huge difference when compared to gen six where while more varied the new pokemon are harder to find, and also have less when conpared to another gen. Next your gonna tell me Johto didn't also had a Kanto bias, and all the johto pokemon were easily findable...
 
May 17, 2018
791
#93
So in 20 years they've created 800. In another 20 there'll probably be less than double. I can't even imagine the series in 20 years. I'm sure they'll figure something out, probably just slow down the amount of new Pokemon without necessarily capping it. I just hope they go back to longer periods for a generation to exist and cut out the "third game" bullshit of making people buy a new game for the same game + additional content.
 
May 22, 2018
2,493
#94
This about technical limitations not nostalgia, I have favorites from all gens.
Technical limitations that you're literally making up.

The fucking 3DS could handle 800+. Do you really think that the Switch can't handle 1001? Or even 2000 or more?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,606
#96
Gamefreak and their main partners have shown no indications they're hitting a wall in terms of funding or manpower, and if they were having trouble they've got a bigger company to call upon for help.
 
Oct 26, 2017
1,527
Florida
They need to bloat the games more tbh.

They could benefit so much from more variety in enemy teams and the ability to get any of my favorites without trading or having to own multiple games across different hardware.