Why Megas?

>>32001973
Because fuck you

File: Junichi_Masuda.png (243KB, 269x395px) Image search: [Google]

243KB, 269x395px

Haha I don't know

B

>>32001973

Mega Evolutions aren't evolutions, they're DBZ-esque Super forms, and this is reflected in their designs. Instead of going through any drastic changes like a normal evolution, it's just the same Pokemon, but stronger.

>>32001973
They're transformations, not evolutions. A big difference. Gameplay-wise, they're more balanced than just buffing a bunch of Pokemon by giving them new evolutions, you get a stronger version, restricted to a single Pokemon per battle, and can't use item. A lot more balanced.

"I like Charizard, and wanted him to be stronger and cooler, but didn't want to lose the original I loved, so Mega Evolution, a temporary Evolution, seemed like the perfect way to go about it". I recall reading someone from GF say something like this.

>>32002023
>I like Charizard
We know

>>32002014
Yeah I also kind of see mega evolutions as similar to like a super saiyan.

>>32001973
>Why was this made a thing?

Marketability. Also, because it allows them to give beloved Pokemon a boost without permanently ruining them for nostalgiafags.

>But why for pokemon that could just as easily been given a branching evo or third stage?
Eviolite. Unless they remove or nerf this item, I'm pretty sure we're never getting cross-generational evolutions outside of Eevee ever again. It's literally been 10 years since the last batch.

eviolite was a mistake

>>32001973
>Why was this made a thing?
Gamefreak try to add new and interesting mechanics every generation. With XY's lower amount of new Pokemon, it's obvious that they were trying to be economic with characters that already existed rather than just adding newer, better ones (the so-called "power creep").
Many staples from past generations were infamously underpowered in competitive battle, so Megas are at once a way to introduce a new twist on old favourites. It would appease classic, older fans whilst encouraging new players to use old Pokemon.
>I can maybe understand having it for starters and some legends.
There are no "rules" to Pokemon; merely the illusion of rules. There is nothing that says something cannot have more than three evolutionary stages. There is nothing that says there can't be a new type. There is nothing that says legendaries can't evolve. The only pattern fans could ascertain is that popular Pokemon tend to be the ones that got Mega evolutions - though some, especially Hoenn Pokemon, break this rule and clearly exist to give them a new battle viability.
>But why for pokemon that could just as easily been given a branching evo or third stage?
What do three-stage lines represent? What do single-stage Pokemon represent? Why do you think they made the choice to implement them that way? More often than not it's due to a gameplay mechanic, element or balance issue that causes them to appear the way they do. For example, Charmander's line was originally the only three-stage Fire line in the game. Mid-game Fire Pokemon evolved once through a new mechanic (Arcanine/Flareon with a stone) and the late-game introduced Magmar - a Pokemon comparable to Charizard if you chose a different starter Pokemon. It's just an example, but that's the kind of thing we're talking about.
>Am I looking at it wrong? Is it just a neat way for your team to have an ace?
I think it's more to do with marketing than individual teams.