XY only had 71 new pokemon. I hereby propose that XYORAS is,

Better logic than 6.5 at least.

neat

>>25840763
No, because it had starters.

If Sun/Moon has new pokémon but no new starters then it's still gen 6.

ORAS had new megas, which were advertised as new Pokemon.

I hereby propose that ORAS is, in fact, gen 7, and Sun/Moon will be gen 8.

>>25840804
Why Yellow is not treat as gen II? Pikachu was introduced in RB but still - it's still a new starter

>>25840844
Pikachu was available in Red/Blue.

>>25840763
this is pretty stupid even for vp

>>25840875
But not as a starter. It was new starter in Yellow

File: image.jpg (50KB, 500x272px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 500x272px

>>25840804
This is the stupidest logic I've ever fucking seen

>>25840880
>this is pretty stupid even for vp
But this is not pokemon Grey thread

>>25840930
If you start with the Kalos starters, is it really a new gen? Cmon.

>>25840950
No, but you won't, so it's Gen VII

It is only a gen if it is on new hardware. BW1&2 are gen 4 and XY, Oras and SM are gen 5

>>25841132
no you retard, BW is gen 3 because ruby and sapphire is gen 2.

>>25841215
You cant compare the gameboy colour with the dsi or the new 3ds.

>>25841341
gold and silver can be played on an OG gameboy

>>25840902
But it was still available. In this hypothetical case these would be new starters that are simultaneously new Pokémon.

Though I personally hold two-way compatibility as the standard. If I can trade and battle both ways between XYORAS and S&M then I'll consider S&M Gen 6.5.

>but GSC!

You can trade but not battle with RBY.

Guys, we must wait to see the engine of the game. That would determine if its gen 6.5 or 7.

File: kontynuuj.jpg (24KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 320x240px

Why people are fighting about gen 6.5/7? How is the difference important for me as a player and buyer?

>>25840763
You're conveniently ignoring the 30+ megas.
Which, like it or not, are considered new in GFs eyes. Expect to see less actual new pokemon and more megas. And GF will still consider it the same thing.

>>25840763
I propose that you're a faggot

>>25841777
It's important for all the faggots who are waging on one of the most idiotic genwars ever.

Personally, I don't want to join either side, but I'll say that while Gen7fags have more probabilities of winning, their logic can be pretty stupid at times. They seem to only care about new Pokémon exclusively; they will call it a new gen even if they only release one Pokémon, and they trust GF and TPC way too much (they are saying there will be a new world with new Pokémon, but they said the exact same bullshit to promote ORAS).

>>25842229
But it is not an answer for my question. What is the difference for me as a player? What I will gain if SM will be a gen 6.5/7?

>>25840836
So XY had about 100 New Pokemon?

>>25842276
Literally nothing, it's just faggots arguing over the definition of a generation.

>>25842276
If it's gen "6.5", it means that SM will most probably provide closure for the awful mess that the 6th gen has been so far. It would be good for all the players who don't want the gen to close on such a low note. Of course, they could screw it further.

If it's 7, then it will be a different experience for the player, probably with an unrelated plot to that of Kalos. Gen 6 will remain shit, and /vp/ gets to roast it every once in a while.

>>25842362
I have to disagree - it could very easily be a new generation that still relates to Kalos, much like GS related to RBY.

>>25840950

Yeah please. We both know Sun and Moon will let you choose between 3 Charmanders

>>25840763
BRILLIANT

>>25841700
With things like Pokebank and the general advancement of technology, what if every game from now on is backwards compatible?
Will it all be Gen 6?

>>25842276
the plot might wrap up Kalos or not. That's ehh.. about it.
vp is fucking stupid and need to fill the void in our lives somehow so why not have an argument

>>25842613
Then my definition of a generation will change. And it won't change until that happens for several generations in a row.

Red & Green: Gen 1.0
Blue: Gen 1.1
Red & Blue: Gen 1.11
Yellow: Gen 1.12
Stadium: Gen 1.13
Gold & Silver: Gen 1.20
Crystal: Gen 1.21
Stadium 2: Gen 1.22
Ruby & Sapphire: Gen 2.0
Colosseum: Gen 2.10
FireRed & LeafGreen: Gen 2.11
Emerald: Gen 2.12
Gale of Darkness: Gen 2.13
Diamond & Pearl: Gen 2.20
Platinum: Gen 2.21
HeartGold & SoulSilver: Gen 2.22
Black & White: Gen 2.30
Black2 & White2: Gen 2.31
X & Y: Gen 2.40
OmegaRuby & Alpha Sapphire: Gen 2.41
Sun & Moon: Gen 2.45

File: 1459743726385.png (126KB, 750x709px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 750x709px

>post yfw Sun and Moon are reboots
>unpopular Pokemon are retconned out of existence
>there will actually be LESS Pokemon after Sun and Moon come out

File: kek.png (49KB, 219x233px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 219x233px

>>25842968

>>25842968
this is actually a good idea

File: 38.png (29KB, 112x112px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 112x112px

>>25842968
>tfw only have unpopular favorites
>most would likely be cut

>>25844805
They'd be bound to piss people off. Somewhere out there, even Mr. Mime, Qwilfish, Stantler, Huntail, Finneon, Keldeo, Aromatisse, and pointless mid-evos have fans.

>>25842968
>unpopular Pokemon are retconned out of existence

So we got what left? All Generation I Pokémon, Lucario, Greninja, etc.?

File: 1457457399739.png (86KB, 500x515px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 500x515px

>>25844943
This. Every Pokémon is somebody's favorite. To go out of your way to remove a Pokémon from the series does nothing but hurt the fans of that Pokémon.

>>25842968
That already happened with Ruby/Sapphire. The other 180 something mons were programmed in the game and all, but come on, I had to wait a whole year to get Electabuzz when Firered came out, that was some bullshit

>>25840763
>Megas aren't Pokemon

>>25840763
>amount of new pokemon counts as new gen
>megas doesn't count
You may as well not count evolutions from pokemons in other gens, and count S/M as gen3.

>>25848152
>>25848316
Megas are more similar to formes than to actual Pokémon. But still, your logic is the same of GF: they seem to treat them as brand new mons, which is really sad and shows how lazy they are.

Future gens will probably have fewer and fewer new mons and more Megas or weird alternate forms.

>>25842968
I would fucking shoot up Gamefreak's headquarters in fucking Japland.

>>25848367
>they seem to treat them as brand new mons, which is really sad and shows how lazy they are.
If you consider Magmortar, Electivire, Magnezone, Togekiss, Glaceon, Leafeon, and etc new pokemons, you may as well consider Megas new pokemons.

In my pov, gen4 evolutions of gen1 are all lazy as fuck, look at fucking likictung and tangela evolutions.
At first I thought that megas were just a bad idea, but now I see that with megas, GF can do stuff that they wouldn't be able to do with common evolution, if Mega/Primal of legendaries and some specific pokemons were just plain evolution, they would be plain broken, or they would need to make the pokemon weaker somehow.

I like how they reduced the stress amount of creating new "unique" pokemons, while not neglecting older pokemons. I prefer them to release 60~90 new pokemons while adding support for 20~30 old pokemons instead of gen5, that was basically a remake of gen1 pokemons.

>>25848503
I didn't mean that megas are bad per se. It just pisses me off how they seem to capitalize on some revamped designs.

Actually (and this may hint at my huge level of autism) I'd like the whole concept more if megas had a dex entry. I know dex entires mean nothing, but I'd love a little bit of lore to these formes, in order to perceive them a little more as actual new Pokémon.

That said, I surely prefer 100+ new Pokémon and say 30-40 megas; new mons make me feel the game itself more vivid, and that's why I loved Gen 5. So here our opinions diverge completely, but that's fine.

File: 1457669815214.gif (497KB, 302x200px) Image search: [Google]

497KB, 302x200px

>>25848551
>It just pisses me off how they seem to capitalize on some revamped designs.
>likes Gen 5

>>25848565
Say what you want about Sawk, Throh, Gigalith, Conkeldurr and what else you see as a "remake", but they feel really different from the Hitmons, Golem and the Machamp line in their concept. It doesn't mean they're good designs, you may or may not like them. But you can't say a Lucario with some more spikes and weird mask-appendages-thing is comparable, as a revamp, to a Fighting three-stage Pokémon that doesn't share anything concept- and lore-wise to it's Gen 1 counterpart, except levels and methods of evolution.

Still, there are some neat Mega designs, and as I already said, I don't think Megas are bad. I'd just like a little more lore around each and every one of those forms, especially since GF is treating them as new Pokémon, and they were very important (and still quite shallow) in Gen 6 plot.

>>25848503
>If you consider Magmortar, Electivire, Magnezone, Togekiss, Glaceon, Leafeon, and etc new pokemons, you may as well consider Megas new pokemons.

I could have Magmortar and Electivire on my team at the same time instead of being limited to using one per battle, and they could have stat gains above 100.

>>25848876
Also, this

>>25848503
I can have Gen 4 pokemon dex entries, be places anywhere, anytime in my party, in a battle, in a contest, a novel setting like the amie or have it follow me (HGSS), or sit in my pc all at the same time

>>25848565
Gen 5 mons are completely new mons regardless. While they share themes, they do not simply add spikes.

If this is your logic, then even non-gen-5 throwbacks like Gen 3's Milotic is not a new pokemon because it's a revamped Gyarados and so is Gen 4's Staraptor being Pidgeot 2.0

File: My-nigga-o.gif (283KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 320x240px

>>25849647

>>25848876
How does "I can't have all of them at the same time" translates to "Megas are lazy as fuck".

>>25849647
>If this is your logic, then even non-gen-5 throwbacks like Gen 3's Milotic is not a new pokemon because it's a revamped Gyarados and so is Gen 4's Staraptor being Pidgeot 2.0
Not him, but yeah. Some stuff will always be made, like bird of the region, dragon of the region, or starters, but Milotic line looks too much like Gyarados line. I would actually think that it would be pretty cool if magikarp had a split evo, where he would turn into Milotic if happy, or Gyarados if unhappy.

>>25851642
>>25851642
I'm saying they aren't new Pokémon, is all. You can put effort into Megas (though I'd say the good-designed ones are in the minority), but thy aren't new Pokémon, they aren't comparable to actual cross-gens because of all the differences between the two.

>>25849647
So, your complaint about Mega is not their design, it is because you can't have them anywhere all the time? This is more understandable, and I also would like to play amie with some mega pokemons.

>>25851713
On topic of megas being new pokemon--yes. They are fundamentally different to actual real pokemon for people to say that liking gen 5 "revamp" (same themes as previous gens) is the same as liking gen 6 "revamp" (megas)

That doesnt mean I cant actually complain about a number of ugly mega

>>25851810
Some are ugly as fuck, but some are quite cool, and there are some that somehow grew on me.