what went wrong vp? Am I the only one that wants the higher

>>32271749
It would be nice. Also more new pokemon that evolve, last gen had very few

>>32271749

well, they firstly should ban legendaries in any tournaments, and fix stats distribution, make speed stat max 150 for everything, make movepool and itempool better and there you go

I don't really care. The appeal of a new game is always new stuff to do with old Pokémon for me, not new Pokémon.

>>32271749
quality over quantity.
if they were now at the point of adding 400+ per gen you'd just be on here bitching about how shitty all these new pokemon were instead.

Really miss cross-gen evolutions for older Pokemon. Fuck, I'll even take baby mons at this point (without the stupid maxed/high friendship requirement granted). Just something.

>>32271749
It's only natural to introduce fewer new characters to a game as time goes on. It slows power creep and reduces redundancies.

>>32271779
This doesnt exist, quality is subjective

>>32271788
This though, it's expected that they'd start slowing down

>>32271776
you're an horrible person with horrible opinions and should feel bad about yourself
I can't even muster myself to use older pokémon in new games, I mean why the fuck should i use mons that I've already used? The fun of pokémon is using new and different mons in every playthrough
The 3DS games are already weighted down by insufferable plots and characters, but the lack of mons makes them even less replayable. I really hope they go in a total different direction on the Switch.

>>32271788
...except they add to the power creep anyways despite not adding more mons.
>min-maxed UBs
>Tapus
>Lando-T
>Megas
>Z-moves

The only effective way to really reduce power creep is to not only add less new Pokemon, but to give older mons at least a buff in some fashion (movepools, abilities, BST increases, evolutions).

Not every Pokemon can become competitively viable, there will always be shitmons; but if it means giving some Pokemon like Pelipper a chance to shine in OU temporarily, that's at least something.

>>32271780
Sylveon is the last one we got in 3 generations and it sucks. So many Pokemon deserve evolutions, or a prevo so they can be available earlier on rather than after badge 7

I don't see any reason why they shouldn't give us a gen of 3 sets of remakes, flesh out some lore, build up a better story, region, and a boatload of new Pokémon after like 8 years.

Like, imagine this: Gen 7 ends after SM2 or whatever they decide. No remakes or sequels.

Gen 8 starts on Switch. a moderate entry, gives us a similar number of mons, let's say 98 just to bump it to 900 (because it would be pretty sad if a new gen of Pokémon didn't take us to a new hundred of mons 2bh.) So gen 8 starts, and is mediocre or whatever. Now, gf starts acting weird. Every year/two years, they release a new game. First, Sinnoh remakes. Next, Kanto remakes. Next, BW3. Next... Kanto sequels to the remakes. After honing their craft a bit more every new release (and ending gen 8 with a whopping 10 games in a single gen,) gen 9 releases in, like, 2030, on whatever new console is released. 200+ Pokémon. 40+ regional forms. 40+ new megas. Absolutely massive new region.

It would be an excellent plan for gen 8 and 9, imo,, and it's very sad that GF won't do it.

>>32271776
>>32271779
>imblyign

>>32271780
This is OK, though.

>>32271821
I barely count Sylveon for anything because it really felt like was only there to introduce Fairy type. That's it.

>>32271749
They're taking it slow because they want Gen 9 to end with the pokémon number 999, so Gen 10 can start with the pokémon number 1000.

>>32271749
Game Freak thinks that Megas and Alola forms are as good as new Pokemon, despite being forms for old Pokemon.

I don't know how long it takes to build a model for a Pokemon so I could be talking complete shit here but wouldn't the time taken to create said models and their animations take significantly longer to the point where it affects deadlines?

I wouldn't be surprised if there were way more Pokemon up for possible entries to the series in both gens that lost out to time constraints or popular vote. I wanna say that based on the potential trend seen in the figures but at the same time Gen 5 was basically a reboot for Gen 1 so they might have started running out of new ideas by that point regardless, hard to tell exactly how much gets carried over across gens to include based on it being skipped the first time 'round.

>>32271854
Only 18 Alolan forms at that; honestly, another complete waste of time. Are GF's artists really this strapped for ideas?

>>32271834
That's true. I always disliked the fact they introduced one and only one. But one is better than none I guess (plus I like Sylveon so I welcome its addition)

>>32271861
The fanbase's backlash against Gen 5 probably has made GF afraid to introduce more new Pokemon in a generation.

>>32271866
This and the fact that they only gave forms to gen 1 pokemon so they were really limiting their options

>>32271877
yeah I too found it odd that they didn't take the opportunity to check another type off the list of types that don't have an eevolution

I won't complain if they keep on gradually increasing the number

that's fine by me

>>32271779
I'm okay with smaller generations if it means that half of them aren't forgettable, or just straight up garbage, like gen 5. Almost every design in the past two gens is great, so let GF take their time.

>>32271906
I meant only one cross-gen evo but another eevolution would've been nice. Maybe dragon-type? It partners fairy and would make it so that all the eevolutions are special types

>>32271926
ah I see what you meant. I thought you were referring to how the new eevolutions were traditionally introduced in twos (espeon and umbreon, leafeon and glaceon)