• Post New Message
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Do you think pokemon would have been better off if the dex....

User Info: zommbie

zommbie
4 days ago#31
I agree with what Twinklestar said, I'm not even gonna bother collecting all of the galar pokemon just the ones I like and need for counters
[::[_]::] Nintendo DS Lite Crimson/Black
[+[_]::] Currently Playing- World of Warcraft

User Info: Lum_Yatsura

Lum_Yatsura
4 days ago#32
Twinklestar posted...
DeltaSilver88 posted...
Zeta777 posted...
It would’ve killed Pokémon like it did all the other monster franchises

Like Digimon and Monster Hunter that are actually still relevant?


Funnily enough, Sw/Sh basically asks players to treat Pokemon games like Digimon games from now on.

Stop collecting, because they may get cut in the next games anyway. Just pick the few you want to play with, and finish the game with them, defeating the rest of the creatures in the process. You can even treat box cover legendaries as non-recruitable/accessible bosses that Digimon games have plenty of. Digimon World 3/2003 is the best example for this, as the equipment system aside, it basically plays like a Pokemon game without the catching and collecting part. Heck it even has "gym leaders" lol

Maybe even remove Pokedex altogether. That concept only serve to remind players about the collecting aspect.


Don't most Digimon games shake up the gameplay too much for keeping creatures to work well?

Like I've been trying to say, there must be a good reason the national dex was NOT adopted by other series.
Shouting "what did you do that for?" at a stationary bucket of water.

User Info: Dumb-Fumbler

Dumb-Fumbler
4 days ago#33
Lum_Yatsura posted...
Like I've been trying to say, there must be a good reason the national dex was NOT adopted by other series.
Laziness
Icicle Crash + Heat Crash = Waterfall

User Info: Lum_Yatsura

Lum_Yatsura
4 days ago#34
How about the restrictions it places on game design? Letting players keep old creatures means keeping the game's mechanics and structure (relatively) compatible. It's harder to do things like sweeping changes to the stat system, one thing Gen 3 was able to do without being tied to Gen 2.
Shouting "what did you do that for?" at a stationary bucket of water.
Lum_Yatsura posted...
How about the restrictions it places on game design? Letting players keep old creatures means keeping the game's mechanics and structure (relatively) compatible. It's harder to do things like sweeping changes to the stat system, one thing Gen 3 was able to do without being tied to Gen 2.


They are just delaying the inevitable.

Either they are just putting off having to update the older pokemon to whatever new system they are doing, or they plan on never bringing back certain pokemon.

The second option is not really an option and they easily have the money for the manpower to do the first option.

There is NO defense for their awful dev practices, they should not be in charge of this franchise.

User Info: Lum_Yatsura

Lum_Yatsura
4 days ago#36
thebestestbest posted...
Lum_Yatsura posted...
How about the restrictions it places on game design? Letting players keep old creatures means keeping the game's mechanics and structure (relatively) compatible. It's harder to do things like sweeping changes to the stat system, one thing Gen 3 was able to do without being tied to Gen 2.


They are just delaying the inevitable.

Either they are just putting off having to update the older pokemon to whatever new system they are doing, or they plan on never bringing back certain pokemon.

The second option is not really an option and they easily have the money for the manpower to do the first option.

There is NO defense for their awful dev practices, they should not be in charge of this franchise.


"Delaying the inevitable" is at the heart of the debacle. It's irrational and unreasonable to expect them to continually increase the number of pokemon in each game until the end of time.
Shouting "what did you do that for?" at a stationary bucket of water.
Lum_Yatsura posted...
thebestestbest posted...
Lum_Yatsura posted...
How about the restrictions it places on game design? Letting players keep old creatures means keeping the game's mechanics and structure (relatively) compatible. It's harder to do things like sweeping changes to the stat system, one thing Gen 3 was able to do without being tied to Gen 2.


They are just delaying the inevitable.

Either they are just putting off having to update the older pokemon to whatever new system they are doing, or they plan on never bringing back certain pokemon.

The second option is not really an option and they easily have the money for the manpower to do the first option.

There is NO defense for their awful dev practices, they should not be in charge of this franchise.


"Delaying the inevitable" is at the heart of the debacle. It's irrational and unreasonable to expect them to continually increase the number of pokemon in each game until the end of time.


It is perfectly reasonable to expect the franchise that sells tens of millions of copies to keep growing and not cut off old monsters.

User Info: Lum_Yatsura

Lum_Yatsura
4 days ago#38
thebestestbest posted...
Lum_Yatsura posted...
thebestestbest posted...
Lum_Yatsura posted...
How about the restrictions it places on game design? Letting players keep old creatures means keeping the game's mechanics and structure (relatively) compatible. It's harder to do things like sweeping changes to the stat system, one thing Gen 3 was able to do without being tied to Gen 2.


They are just delaying the inevitable.

Either they are just putting off having to update the older pokemon to whatever new system they are doing, or they plan on never bringing back certain pokemon.

The second option is not really an option and they easily have the money for the manpower to do the first option.

There is NO defense for their awful dev practices, they should not be in charge of this franchise.


"Delaying the inevitable" is at the heart of the debacle. It's irrational and unreasonable to expect them to continually increase the number of pokemon in each game until the end of time.


It is perfectly reasonable to expect the franchise that sells tens of millions of copies to keep growing and not cut off old monsters.


In a manner of speaking yeah. You want to keep the monsters from languishing to obscurity.
Even if not put in every game, maintain their presence in the public consciousness through merchandise, the anime, comics, wherever. Fans will be thrilled for the next game they appear in.
Shouting "what did you do that for?" at a stationary bucket of water.

User Info: AlfredoJones

AlfredoJones
4 days ago#39
thebestestbest posted...
It is perfectly reasonable to expect the franchise that sells tens of millions of copies to keep growing and not cut off old monsters.
There was always going to come a time when no amount of money was going to keep all of the Pokemon in and have a solid game to go along with them. That time probably wasn't now, but the powers that be decided to rip the bandage off now.
You can't fool me, 'cause I'm a moron!
Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-2960-9608-3596

User Info: Splatdude431

Splatdude431
4 days ago#40
I still don't understand why people say the dex cut is something that NEEDED to happen EVENTUALLY. I have yet to get a good reason as to why people think this.

It seems people are just assuming that merely having more Pokémon present means more effort and that therefore that will escalate out of control. Despite all the evidence to the contrary me and others have given.
My Youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCBCTOrS6ElyMDKNne1PPy9w
  1. Boards
  2. Pokemon Sword
  3. Do you think pokemon would have been better off if the dex....
  • Post New Message