• Light/Dark
  • Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Would you be ok with Nintendo capping Pokémon at 1000

Absolute

Banned
Nov 6, 2017
2,090
I like how they keep adding. Every new generation of kids that start's pokemon have their own unique offerings and to me this series is for children primarily (as a very old kid I still love it). Everyone has their favourites and then there is discussion about all the best pokemon from all the different game. It is a game for all ages of course so I am not saying adults can't have a say but I hope the Pokemon company never change their focus in this regard. Plenty of other stuff they should focus on first!
 
Kinsei

Kinsei

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
20,519
Solid said:
people who play the games, vs people who don't play Pokemon, and can't help but wonder out loud why Pokemon's developers aren't doing more to meet the arbitrary standards that those people have decided might get them to take a second look at a series they otherwise wouldn't touch now
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
And if Let's Go is any indication, they won't.
 
Jonneh

Jonneh

Good Vibes Gaming
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
4,538
UK
What's with the fascination with wanting to reboot or cap Pokémon so much? Pokémon Company have gone on record saying that the reason the franchise is so popular is because they've never rebooted it. Every single Pokémon has sales potential. When you create a new line, you're reinvigorating the series, you're creating buzz for a whole new generation of children.

Capping Pokémon makes no sense and would likely go on to kill the franchise. Cutting Pokémon also makes no sense as many of the designs are evergreen and are still marketable alongside new additions.
 
ILikeFeet

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
Jonneh said:
What's with the fascination with wanting to reboot or cap Pokémon so much? Pokémon Company have gone on record saying that the reason the franchise is so popular is because they've never rebooted it. Every single Pokémon has sales potential. When you create a new line, you're reinvigorating the series, you're creating buzz for a whole new generation of children.

Capping Pokémon makes no sense and would likely go on to kill the franchise. Cutting Pokémon also makes no sense as many of the designs are evergreen and are still marketable alongside new additions.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
speaking of pokemon, are you still gonna do your Gen 8 expectations video for Gamexplain?
 
Jonneh

Jonneh

Good Vibes Gaming
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
4,538
UK
ILikeFeet said:
speaking of pokemon, are you still gonna do your Gen 8 expectations video for Gamexplain?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Kind of, it's debuting a Patreon exclusive on camera series so I'm sure most people won't see it haha. It's basically a 14 minute version of my posts in this thread - concluding that Gen 8 will follow the formula of other games in the series but designed further around 3D space.
 
ILikeFeet

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
Jonneh said:
Kind of, it's debuting a Patreon exclusive on camera series so I'm sure most people won't see it haha. It's basically a 14 minute version of my posts in this thread - concluding that Gen 8 will follow the formula of other games in the series but designed further around 3D space.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
coolio
 
Serebii

Serebii

Serebii.net Webmaster
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
13,116
Absolutely not. It makes no sense to end it. There's a reason games with new Pokémon in sell the most. You're asking for Pokémon to die essentially.

Plus, as people have said, no game since the originals has you have to catch all the Pokémon or even make it possible without transfer.

Pokémon Gold & Silver had 251 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for the capture of 232 of the 251 available Pokémon at the time
Pokémon Crystal had 251 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for the capture of 223 of the 251 available Pokémon at the time (It lacked some of the GS version exclusives which is why it has less)
Pokémon Ruby & Sapphire had 202 Pokémon in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for the capture of 202 of the 386 available Pokémon at the time
Pokémon FireRed & LeafGreen had 151 Pokémon in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for the capture of 220 of the 386 available Pokémon at the time
Diamond & Pearl had 151 Pokémon in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for the capture of 443 of the 493 available Pokémon at the time
Platinum had 210 Pokémon in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for the capture of 437 of the 493 available Pokémon at the time (It lacked some of the Sinnoh version exclusives which is why it has less)
Heart Gold & SoulSilver had 256 Pokémon in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for the capture of 452 of the 493 available Pokémon at the time
Black & White had 156 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for capture of 469 of the 649 available Pokémon at the time
Black 2 & White 2 had 301 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for capture of 482 of the 649 available Pokémon at the time
X & Y had 454 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for capture of 596 of the 721 available Pokémon at the time
Omega Ruby & Alpha Sapphire had 211 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for capture of 479 of the 721 available Pokémon at the time
Sun & Moon had 301 in its regional Pokédex and allowed for capture of 383 of the 802 available Pokémon at the time
Ultra Sun & Ultra Moon had 403 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for capture of 561 of the 807 available Pokémon at the time
Let's Go, Pikachu & Let's Go, Eevee had 153 in its Regional Pokédex and allowed for capture of 153 of the 809 available Pokémon at the time



This line of thought is clearly a by-product of the stupid marketing campaign in the west from 1998 through 2002 and 2013 through 2015 running "Gotta Catch 'Em All" making people think that is the main goal, when it wasn't. That was just a clever marketing slogan, made for the west, to get people to buy things but it has made people think that you HAVE to get them all, when you don't. Hell, they even removed the National Pokédex from Generation 7 Pokémon games to avoid this.
 
Fat4all

Fat4all

Woke up, got a money tag, swears a lot
Member
Oct 25, 2017
92,529
here
i want a Pokémon game where it's the future and 90% of Pokémon went extinct, and you gotta genetically recreate all of them in a Jurassic Park/Zoo Tycoon like game
 
Enrico25

Enrico25

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Jan 10, 2018
1,225
No. The series needs less variants/forms.
I want a lot of completely new Pokemon in gen8. My dream is another BW like game where there are only new Pokemon.
 
FSLink

FSLink

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,261
Bobo Dakes said:
Sounds like a personal problem. I can't help you with that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You: Gen 6 and 7 were done well as far as balance with Gen 1
Them: But that isn't true because if you look at the numbers, it isn't.
You: It really isn't that different
Them: Here's the data
You: Sounds like a personal problem


o_O
 
i-Jest

i-Jest

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,009
ILikeFeet said:
they'll stop when pokemon dies
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

This sounds just about right.

New region means new gym/gym like challenges and creatures to catch. It's apart of the wonder that's always surrounded the series exploratory appeal. When fans get sick and tired of all these pokemon, for casual and competitive interest, only then will the series see a significant decline. Pokemon Go has opened up a new avenue of interest for the franchise to explore. The traditional formula hasn't failed, but SUMO and US/UM were quite stale with their pacing issues. All in all interest is still generally strong.
 
Imran

Imran

Member
Oct 24, 2017
6,557
How many "Old man yells at cloud" threads about the number of Pokémon are we going to get
 
Thequietone

Thequietone

Member
Oct 26, 2017
4,052
I don't understand the complaint about having to remember too many Pokemon. I memorize every single Pokemon, their types, and how/when they evolve. In some cases I remember when they learn moves. Even if I didn't Google is right there. Do I have extraordinary memory or something?
 
Mekanos

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,117
Thequietone said:
I don't understand the complaint about having to remember too many Pokemon. I memorize every single Pokemon, their types, and how/when they evolve. In some cases I remember when they learn moves. Even if I didn't Google is right there. Do I have extraordinary memory or something?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...

As a big fan who's been playing the games for 20 years, I gave up on memorizing names by gen 5. Most types and evolution methods I can nail down no problem, but names are a lot harder for me starting with Unova.

Granted, that's because gen 5 was the last gen to have the massive wait time between the Japanese and international releases, so for six months all we had were the Japanese names to talk about. I memorized a lot of those names and then when faced with relearning them was overwhelmed.

Like, right now, I couldn't tell you what the middle stage of Goomy and Goodra's line is called. Let's see what Google says.... Sliggoo? Yep, totally forgot.
 
Sander VF

Sander VF

The Fallen
Oct 28, 2017
25,932
Tbilisi, Georgia
Thequietone said:
I don't understand the complaint about having to remember too many Pokemon. I memorize every single Pokemon, their types, and how/when they evolve. In some cases I remember when they learn moves. Even if I didn't Google is right there. Do I have extraordinary memory or something?
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Actually, why do these people pretend one has to be able to memorize all Pokémon and that the series should remove some to accommodate their inability to do so?

No seriously, "but I can't catch 'em all!"

So what?
 
Majukun

Majukun

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,542
No they shouldn't.

What they should do is actually using that number at their advantage and put all of them available at once, every route dozens of new and diverse pkmn catchable, maybe bring back the day and night cicle from gold and silver
 
Revolsin

Revolsin

Usage of alt-account.
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,373
I mean, realistically it's not really sustainable to keep making new pokemon when you'll need to make brand new models for all of them every few years(assuming they want to keep any level of quality going forward).

I'd be good with them dumping a ton and keeping the good ones from each gen. Keep it well under a 1000
 
Jonneh

Jonneh

Good Vibes Gaming
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
4,538
UK
Birdseye said:
Honestly, 150 was more than enough.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Type variety is greatly flawed in Gen 1
Revolsin said:
I mean, realistically it's not really sustainable to keep making new pokemon when you'll need to make brand new models for all of them every few years(assuming they want to keep any level of quality going forward).

I'd be good with them dumping a ton and keeping the good ones from each gen. Keep it well under a 1000
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
That's why they've used the same models since 2012
 

Deleted member 4034

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
26,560
FSLink said:
You: Gen 6 and 7 were done well as far as balance with Gen 1
Them: But that isn't true because if you look at the numbers, it isn't.
You: It really isn't that different
Them: Here's the data
You: Sounds like a personal problem


o_O
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
Yes, I'm aware of what I said.

I'm not the one screaming gen 1 bias for games I had entire new teams on. I'm not actively allergic to seeing a Charizard in new games.

The Kanto bias gen 1 thing was annoying on page one, I'm not gonna waste my time having that same argument for the 100th time with a different who had to get his correction in on something that isn't a big issue. My responses were worded the way they were because that me nicely saying "I really don't want to do this", but he kept pushing.

The-Polar-Express-2004-ScreenShot-09.jpg



So yeah, that's my response. Sounds like a personal problem. Each time this exact thing comes up, that'll be my response.
 
Last edited:
Woylie

Woylie

Member
May 9, 2018
1,849
they won't do this. new pokemon being introduced are a huge part of the hype cycle for new pokemon games. i do think that they're conscious of the psychological barrier that 1000 represents and how it makes the roster seem even more overwhelming, but they've taken other, more creative approaches to this like mega evolutions, forms, and regional variants. i think we'll continue to see that, but eventually, they will cross that 1000 threshold, maybe in a hypothetical gen 9 some years down the line.

i've actually been pretty disappointed with the smaller collection of brand new monsters in kalos and alola - a big part of what's appealing about a new pokemon game is seeing all the new pokemon. regional variants and megas are cool, but they aren't really the same for me.
 
Shift Breaker

Shift Breaker

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,486
We all know that if there is an enforced limit, they'll make it #1001 rather than #1000. That last one is special, see.
 
Jonneh

Jonneh

Good Vibes Gaming
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
4,538
UK
Birdseye said:
It fits within Dumbar's number though
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
The rule of 150 doesn't mean you need to only be aware of 150 people though - just that you can be socially attached to them. There are kids out there today who have no idea of the original Pokémon and instead may be attached to 150 completely different monsters. Dumbar's Number is a good theory but hardly an argument for Pokedex numbers, especially considering the franchise has stayed extremely relevent by expanding the Pokedex.
 

Deleted member 42686

User requested account closure
Banned
Apr 26, 2018
1,847
Lets be honest, the only reason people jump into new pokemon games is because of new pokemons. As if they care about numbers, they just want more. If the problem is the models this is GF concern.
 
Adam_Roman

Adam_Roman

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,066
More important than capping the Pokemon that can be made, they need to reorganize the Pokedex. It's weird having stuff like Pichu, Elekid, and Magby around 100 entries away from their evolutions.

And the excuse of "That's the order they were discovered in" never made sense to me because how could they discover over 100 different species of Pokemon before realizing Pikachu lay eggs that hatch into Pichu and not just more Pikachu?
 
brinstar

brinstar

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
10,257
This idea has become increasingly silly to me because the games have basically shuntered all traces of collecting the national dex to an optional app-- so essentially you're only dealing with the full brunt of Pokemon if you specifically choose to-- and somehow even that is still conceptually offensive to some folks and needs to be done away with. At this point the question basically becomes "should this franchise stop adding new characters?" which... no? I don't think there's any reason to stop for the foreseeable future.
 

Deleted member 31092

User requested account closure
Banned
Nov 5, 2017
10,783
Sure, Nintendo should someone force The Pokémon Company to kill the number 1 reason new games sells and the biggest source of merchandising income.


Nintendo should also start burning their money for the lulz.
 
ZeldaGalaxy94

ZeldaGalaxy94

The Fallen
Nov 6, 2017
2,577
Sweden
No stop at 1000, for my favorite podcast have a "The "pokemon" episode" segment, so if they stop doing New Pokémons, the podcast have to end its segment.

The podcast is at 700 already
 
Oswen

Oswen

Member
Oct 25, 2017
806
New Pokémon are what keep the franchise alive.

A fixed roster would have made the Pokémon phenomenon a true fad and wouldn't have gotten far, new additions are what kept everything going for 20 years from games to cards to toys and all sort of merchandising.

National dex is gone from the games and people aren't even supposed to catch everything since each game is basically its own bubble.
The 1000 number will be broken, the day no new Pokémon are added is the day the franchise dies.
 
Pringer Lagann

Pringer Lagann

Member
Oct 31, 2017
194
I can't wait until there are 1 Million pokemon so the subsequent game can be directed by Tak Fujii, it'll be extreeeemely good. But in all seriousness, why not both new pokes and regional variants
 

Deleted member 283

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,288
I'm just always kinda fascinated that so many armchair developers are convinced that something's apparently a problem that Game Freak/Creatures Inc/Nintendo/TPCi have all in no way indicated is a problem at all and if anything have indicated otherwise. Like, at least if people had an interview or something to back this up, that would be one thing. But that this exists only in people's heads makes one can't help but wonder if there are other reasons this topic keeps coming up instead.

Like yeah, maybe in the far, far, far future, this might eventually be a thing. But that time is not now, nor is there any indication it's remotely anytime soon either. So why the interest in talking about it now, as if they should stop it long before it becomes an issue at all? This a bridge to cross when it's actually necessary to cross, and not before. So why the interest in continuing to discuss this now, when we have no idea when or if this will actually become a problem at all is both fascinating and puzzling to me.
 
Scheris

Scheris

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,379
Wouldn't make sense, they have the regional Pokedex for the game's region anyway, and only the hardcore would care about the "full" Pokédex.

I'm don't play competitively, so I catch what I want to catch. The total number doesn't matter to me.
 
Jonneh

Jonneh

Good Vibes Gaming
Verified
Oct 24, 2017
4,538
UK
If Pokémon was ran by the mindset of a lot of the ideas in this thread then it would have indeed just been a fad - like people predicted it would be in the late 90's. The only reason Pokémon isn't a fad is because it keeps refreshing itself for new audiences. You need new marketable Pokémon to do that.
 
Slam Tilt

Slam Tilt

Member
Jan 16, 2018
5,585
Jonneh said:
If Pokémon was ran by the mindset of a lot of the ideas in this thread then it would have indeed just been a fad - like people predicted it would be in the late 90's. The only reason Pokémon isn't a fad is because it keeps refreshing itself for new audiences. You need new marketable Pokémon to do that.
Click to expand...
Click to shrink...
You mean fanboys on an enthusiast forum aren't always smarter than professional marketeers and business majors and managers? MADNESS!
 
-Peabody-

-Peabody-

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,594
Lol for a second with the title I thought you meant Nintendo would start killing off Pokemon to make room for more.
 

Deleted member 48434

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 8, 2018
5,230
Sydney
Maybe they should slow down when we hit the point where new Pokemon are actually legitimately terrible because they've run out of ideas, but we sure as shit ain't hit that point yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.