>new Pokemon game! >NEW forms! >but not new species...

There's over 800 of the fuckers now. Why wouldn't they?

>>33218163
It's easier to make a shitty rehash than something new. Probably not getting USUM if it's as bad as they're making it out to be.

>>33218163
Why wouldn't they? It's a new Pokemon if it has a new type, ability, stats and moves.

>>33218163
Damn...I wish I knew where to watch some old Shin Chan.

>>33218163
because it gives previously existing designs new life, and it makes 0 sense to add entirely new pokemon in the middle of a generation

>>33218245
2005 was the best design with Kath Soucie. I've got a bunch of those episodes I recorded onto a DVD.

Also, if you want to look at pokemon from a game POV, the game simply comes down to stats. You could play the game without even seeing the pokemon. If all you saw was a number and form to indicate what it is then you can remember its stats, type, and moves etc. So making a new form that isn't just aesthetic is essentially making a new pokemon, even if it's just a new form. You could replace every pokemon in this game to look like Pikachu, but they'd all be different, and the game would still play the same. It'd just be dull to look at 800 Pikachus. So from a design perspective, as >>33218237
said, it's easier to just change the gameplay rather than come up with new designs.