>Actually thinking we've only seen 1/3 of the new pokemon

To clarify we've seen about 56 new Pokemon, I only expect there to be 70-85 new Pokemon. Didn't know how to calculate what percent 56 would be of 70-85 and I was too lazy to google.

>>28448290
we've seen all of them, there are no others

first gen where starters dont evolve

>>28448348
We've seen 41 new Pokemon tho

We saw only a 1/3 of new Pokemon for XY around this time (relatively, since XY came out a month before SM will), and we've already seen way more Pokemon than we saw during XY pre-release. If we're seeing the same ratio, we're going to have well over 120 Pokemon

>>28448380
Swear I saw somewhere that we've seen 56 (including Alola forms)

>>28448380
>>28448290
I'd say we might have seen half at best. We're still missing most of the legendaries, evolutions for mons we've already seen, and anything else yet to be revealed. I'd expect 80 new mons at least, though I won't be surprised if they break 100.

If we count mega's, gen 6 gave us 120 new mons, but most people don't count megas, so why are we counting Alolan Formes?

I'd say we've seen about 45% of the mon's but 60-75% of the evolutionary lines. I'm betting on around 90 or so, with 20-30 Alolan Forme's.

>>28448290
imo they're stiffing us on new pokemon for these alt forms