De-evolution, who wants to see it?

[Xenidal]

Evolution is permanent; once you evolve, you can't change back, so no, the concept of de-evolving is pointless because of how it doesn't reflect wildlife in reality.

Some real-world species have "de-evolved", in a sense. Particularly domesticated ones, like cats, dogs, cows, etc. You may say that that was caused by humans rather than naturally occurring, but that would fit perfect with some of the ways that they could incorporate it in-game (use a man-made De-evolution Spray, or have it so a scientist artifically de-evolves a Pokémon in his lab, etc.)

 

[The Outrage]

Evolution is permanent; once you evolve, you can't change back, so no, the concept of de-evolving is pointless because of how it doesn't reflect wildlife in reality.

Some real-world species have "de-evolved", in a sense. Particularly domesticated ones, like cats, dogs, cows, etc. You may say that that was caused by humans rather than naturally occurring, but that would fit perfect with some of the ways that they could incorporate it in-game (use a man-made De-evolution Spray, or have it so a scientist artifically de-evolves a Pokémon in his lab, etc.)

That's not de-evolution--it's like saying snakes "de-evolved" and lost their arms. Natural selection works to let those individuals who are most adapted to their environment survive. In this case, the selection was artificial, but those that passed on their genes were individuals who had traits humans wanted for pets and domesticated animals and thus were adapting for life with humans. It's not as if these were disadvantageous either as they wound up surviving because the dominant species that is completely capable of seeing other species to extinction wanted them to live.

 

[sonic10158]

I don't know... I want them to make a fourth evolution to some pokemon first.

 

[Xenidal]

Evolution is permanent; once you evolve, you can't change back, so no, the concept of de-evolving is pointless because of how it doesn't reflect wildlife in reality.

Some real-world species have "de-evolved", in a sense. Particularly domesticated ones, like cats, dogs, cows, etc. You may say that that was caused by humans rather than naturally occurring, but that would fit perfect with some of the ways that they could incorporate it in-game (use a man-made De-evolution Spray, or have it so a scientist artifically de-evolves a Pokémon in his lab, etc.)

That's not de-evolution--it's like saying snakes "de-evolved" and lost their arms. Natural selection works to let those individuals who are most adapted to their environment survive. In this case, the selection was artificial, but those that passed on their genes were individuals who had traits humans wanted for pets and domesticated animals and thus were adapting for life with humans. It's not as if these were disadvantageous either as they wound up surviving because the dominant species that is completely capable of seeing other species to extinction wanted them to live.

That's not natural selection though... that's some artifical form of selection. Humans themselves do not "evolve" in the sense of natural selection (at least not anymore)... a person with horrible genes can still live a long and even a healthy life due to our medicine and technology.

De-evolution... cats went from completely independant predators to small creatures who mostly rely on humans to survive. Sure, it probably could survive on its own in the wild still, but it's not at all in the state of supremacy that it once was. Any advantages that were picked up were due to chance alone, not because any cat's genes were superior to another cat's (the way that natural selection works).

An even better example is chickens... they have lost their ability to fly because they are bred that way. They went from a flightless creature (probably some form of dinosaur) to something that can fly, and then regressed back to the stage which cannot fly. Not an adaptation (it never became disadvantageous to fly). I really don't know of a single advantage that chickens in captivity have to wild chickens other than the fact that people protect them (but it is those same people who end up killing them in the end, so it's not really symbiosis).

That being said, it's not strictly "de-evolution" in the sense of becoming the past species which it evolved from previously like I'm suggesting happen to the Pokémon, but it's not that unreasonable.

 

[Jukain]

I want to ask what people think de-evolving means because I think I'm seeing a number of different ideas here. De-evolving as I understand it would be pointless for pokemon since we have two things that prevent evolving already: the B-button and Everstone. If you ended up with an evo you didn't want, it's pretty much your own fault. As for making the baby forms easier to get, they have gone some lengths with this by making them available by the Trophy Garden or White Forest. (true, I dont think all of them are available even if you put those two together) Otherwise, B/W made all of the incenses purchasable in Driftveil, what do you want? If you want a better system, then they'd pretty much have to retcon all pre-evos and evos added outside of a pokemon's original gen so that they act more like a normal evo chain. (at least where they don't involve an item and/or trading) Also, making the lesser forms more like their evos has also been achieved thanks to Eviolite. True, it's not that great for all of them, but there are a few where the stat boost does make them superior to their actual evos.

 

[The Outrage]

That's not natural selection though... that's some artifical form of selection. Humans themselves do not "evolve" in the sense of natural selection (at least not anymore)... a person with horrible genes can still live a long and even a healthy life due to our medicine and technology.

De-evolution... cats went from completely independant predators to small creatures who mostly rely on humans to survive. Sure, it probably could survive on its own in the wild still, but it's not at all in the state of supremacy that it once was. Any advantages that were picked up were due to chance alone, not because any cat's genes were superior to another cat's (the way that natural selection works).

An even better example is chickens... they have lost their ability to fly because they are bred that way. They went from a flightless creature (probably some form of dinosaur) to something that can fly, and then regressed back to the stage which cannot fly. Not an adaptation (it never became disadvantageous to fly). I really don't know of a single advantage that chickens in captivity have to wild chickens other than the fact that people protect them (but it is those same people who end up killing them in the end, so it's not really symbiosis).

That being said, it's not strictly "de-evolution" in the sense of becoming the past species which it evolved from previously like I'm suggesting happen to the Pokémon, but it's not that unreasonable.

I think the problem here is your misconception of what evolution is. First line: "any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." Its simplest definition makes no claim toward it being exclusively as a result of natural selection (and indeed, there are other mechanisms), nor does it claim evolution is a progression to something better because its not. You can say its not advantageous to be a domesticated chicken, but you can tell that to all the other game birds hunted to extinction who could fly. They evolved that way because of human selection, but it was still evolution, not a regression. They did not turn back into dinosaurs, so you can't make the analogy that they "de-evolved" because they did not. They evolved to a more domestic state.

Either way, Pokémon evolution is closer to metamorphosis, not Darwinian evolution, so I think we should structure our discussion in that direction. While there are species of jellyfish that are biologically immortal due to their ability to revert to an earlier juvenile stage but even this doesn't seem common.

With that said, you hadn't really addressed this post which addressed everything you said would be advantageous for de-evolution. If you're just going to brush it under the rug, I don't see the point in maintaining a dialogue.

 

[Xenidal]

I think the problem here is your misconception of what evolution is. First line: "any change across successive generations in the heritable characteristics of biological populations." Its simplest definition makes no claim toward it being exclusively as a result of natural selection (and indeed, there are other mechanisms), nor does it claim evolution is a progression to something better because its not. You can say its not advantageous to be a domesticated chicken, but you can tell that to all the other game birds hunted to extinction who could fly. They evolved that way because of human selection, but it was still evolution, not a regression. They did not turn back into dinosaurs, so you can't make the analogy that they "de-evolved" because they did not. They evolved to a more domestic state.

Okay, what I meant was Darwin's version of evolution. Natural selection, survival of the fittest. When a species loses its disadvantageous traits and gains advatageous ones, and all of that happens naturally.

Either way, Pokémon evolution is closer to metamorphosis, not Darwinian evolution, so I think we should structure our discussion in that direction. While there are species of jellyfish that are biologically immortal due to their ability to revert to an earlier juvenile stage but even this doesn't seem common.

That jellyfish is interesting.
Anyway, I take back the part of it being realistic in a real-world sense (my examples were too specific to natural selection, and as you point out, Pokémon evolution really has nothing to do with evolution). But either way it doesn't matter... lots of stuff in Pokémon do not have anything real-world even close.

With that said, you hadn't really addressed this post which addressed everything you said would be advantageous for de-evolution. If you're just going to brush it under the rug, I don't see the point in maintaining a dialogue.

Sorry, I overlooked that post... I did agree with your final point that it's not necessary in any situation. But more specifically:

Spoiler

The way you describe handling the moves is similar to GSC's Time Capsule, which was a big hassle. What you're suggesting actually creates a more complex scenario than breeding, which achieves the same effect you want here. Of course, they could *let* you keep those moves, but then it would place other Pokémon in the branch at a disadvantage since often, what differentiates them is their moveset.

I disagree... the Time Capsule was not a hassle at all. Breeding has several disadvantages... in most cases it's easier just to erase 1 to 3 moves and be done with it (except now the Move Deleter charges Heart Pieces or whatever they're called, which take time to collect).
The only real problem would be if all 4 moves are evolution-exclusive... in which case you'd have to teach it some other move (since you can't erase all 4 moves).
Of course, you could skip the Move Deleter altogether in most cases by simply using 4 different TMs on the Pokémon (as long as the moves are compatible with the pre-evolution).
And lastly, they don't even have to use such a system. They could just make it so upon de-evolving, any evolution-exclusive move is automatically erased (and if all 4 are evolution-exclusive, a default move is given)

The cups for weight restriction is just that--to restrict *those* Pokémon. There's already an alternative to that, just simply own a lower member of the species. As for moves affected by weight, de-evolution would not only affect weight, but also their stats and movepool, making the benefits of gaining/losing weight more costly, especially since we have items that can alter weight already, and the moves themselves that rely on weight are a minority. Yes, a Golurk would hypothetically take more damage from Grass Knot, but a Golett wouldn't have had a chance against a Pokémon that could take down Golurk in the first place.

Cups - owning a lower member of the evolutionary line is not always practical
Moves - you've got a good point

If it's an aesthetic reason, simply don't evolve. Why would you have evolved in the first place?

Good point again... but maybe it evolved accidentally? I believe I have won battles before and just repeatedly pressed A to get through all the text without realizing that an evolution was starting (although this could be prevented with an Everstone)
The other possibility is that you simply change your mind after evolving... something like "Man, Charizard is awesome, I'm gonna evolve my Charmeleon" and then after the evolution "Charizard's not so great... Charmeleon looks cooler anyway..." (of course, this is a rare case... but it could happen to a new player or even an old player playing a new game without being familiar with all the Pokémon... he may evolve for the power but then realize "this is ugly" and not want it so much

Which begs the question, why did you evolve it in the first place? The evolution and pre-evolution will always have these abilities regardless of whether you evolved or de-evolved them. Things like Porygon2 for example, would be usable in contemporary tiers with its evolution. Why would you have to de-evolve Porygon-Z to get Porygon2? Shouldn't you have simply *not* evolved it in the first place?

Perhaps the last thing I mentioned... maybe you are unfamiliar with the game and evolving everything, and then you notice an ability has changed.
Porygon-Z... simple answer, maybe you traded for a Porygon2 but it ended up having a Dubious Disk equipped and evolved on its own. I don't think you can stop a trade evolution.

And I get what you're saying about de-evolution in the cases it does make sense (Porygon ans Slowpoke) not being worth implementing it... that is also a good point

 

[The Outrage]

I disagree... the Time Capsule was not a hassle at all. Breeding has several disadvantages... in most cases it's easier just to erase 1 to 3 moves and be done with it (except now the Move Deleter charges Heart Pieces or whatever they're called, which take time to collect).
The only real problem would be if all 4 moves are evolution-exclusive... in which case you'd have to teach it some other move (since you can't erase all 4 moves).
Of course, you could skip the Move Deleter altogether in most cases by simply using 4 different TMs on the Pokémon (as long as the moves are compatible with the pre-evolution).
And lastly, they don't even have to use such a system. They could just make it so upon de-evolving, any evolution-exclusive move is automatically erased (and if all 4 are evolution-exclusive, a default move is given)

The problem with the Time Capsule is that it does not tell you what moves needed to have been removed, but if such a emchanic were in place today, I'd assume Game Freak would be more competant about it. Automatic deletion of moves would be similar to Rotom's forms, who had actually forgotten their exclusive moves when switching between forms, and in the case of forgetting all moves, magically learned Thundershock.

Cups - owning a lower member of the evolutionary line is not always practical
Moves - you've got a good point

The first line about cups really confuse me--you're saying owning a lower member of an evolutionary line is not always practical. Are you saying that in reference to keeping one on-hand for the cups? If I recall, we have 24 boxes housing 30 Pokémon each, its not exactly impractical to hold multiples of the same species given that its more of a hassle to switch between movesets and EV spreads than it is to switch Pokémon for a battle situation.

Good point again... but maybe it evolved accidentally? I believe I have won battles before and just repeatedly pressed A to get through all the text without realizing that an evolution was starting (although this could be prevented with an Everstone)
The other possibility is that you simply change your mind after evolving... something like "Man, Charizard is awesome, I'm gonna evolve my Charmeleon" and then after the evolution "Charizard's not so great... Charmeleon looks cooler anyway..." (of course, this is a rare case... but it could happen to a new player or even an old player playing a new game without being familiar with all the Pokémon... he may evolve for the power but then realize "this is ugly" and not want it so much

The evolution sequence is exceedingly long even if you were button mashing, there's really no space for accidental evolution--and if there is, you could simply not save. Either way, what's brought up here is situational, and individuals would more than likely know what an evolution looks like.

Perhaps the last thing I mentioned... maybe you are unfamiliar with the game and evolving everything, and then you notice an ability has changed.

That was actually something happening in DPPt, but learning is half the experience. Either way, I'm only seeing de-evolution as a utility for erasing mistakes which I don't see being implemented since there doesn't seem to be a plausible in-game explanation for a majority of the species to do it.

 

[Xenidal]

The first line about cups really confuse me--you're saying owning a lower member of an evolutionary line is not always practical. Are you saying that in reference to keeping one on-hand for the cups? If I recall, we have 24 boxes housing 30 Pokémon each, its not exactly impractical to hold multiples of the same species given that its more of a hassle to switch between movesets and EV spreads than it is to switch Pokémon for a battle situation.

I don't mean that it's impractical to have extra Pokémon... I mean it's not always practical to have the evolutionary relatives. Especially if it's a Pokémon not obtainable in the wild (so something you'd either have to trade for or evolve). And out of the ones that you do have, it's not practical to give them the correct movesets and everything... not that it's impossible or anything (as that's how it is currently done if for whatever reason you want a similar Pokémon in a weight-resricted cup).
Basically, de-evolving a Pokémon with the proper moveset (as long as it can be de-evolved with such a moveset) is favourable to catching or evolving or trading a duplicate, teaching it the correct moves, and allowing it to hold the correct item, etc.
If it's just for one battle... no, I don't think de-evolution would work too well then (as however it is done, it's going to be somewhat of a hassel). However, it is less of a hassel than hunting down an unevolved version and teaching it the proper moves, levelling it up, etc., unless you already have such a Pokémon stored specifically for the purpose of battling.

I'm only seeing de-evolution as a utility for erasing mistakes which I don't see being implemented since there doesn't seem to be a plausible in-game explanation for a majority of the species to do it.

Fair enough. I could see it being used as a plot device, but perhaps that would fit better in a side game

 

[The Outrage]

Fair enough. I could see it being used as a plot device, but perhaps that would fit better in a side game

That's actually what I was starting to think--a side series game similar to Colo/XD where the evil team forcibly de-evolves Pokémon. However, I'm not sure why they'd do that since it seems more like one would want to force evolution if they were into power.

 

[Almonds]

If they make it like Digimon World where you de-evolve and re-evolve to accumulate stat points. But then everyone will do it and the Wi-Fi battles will be packed with pokemons that are 'hax'

 

[Faye Scarlet]

I know I wanted a devolution back in the day when I found out what Dragonair evolves into. >>

 

[potatomon]

I know I wanted a devolution back in the day when I found out what Dragonair evolves into. >>

Why you hate Dragonite's design? I think it's adorable.

 

[Faye Scarlet]

I know I wanted a devolution back in the day when I found out what Dragonair evolves into. >>

Why you hate Dragonite's design? I think it's adorable.

He'd be adorable if he evolved from a Pokemon that looked like him. D8; He evolves from one of the beautifulest Pokemon in existence, but instead of being beautiful and graceful like Dragoniair, Dragonite is this big goofy ugly Barney-esque dragon. It's a shallow thing to say, I know, but Dragonite is just ew compared to Dragonair, and I vowed to never evolve Dragonair again that day 13 years ago. A devo stone from day 1 would fix all this.

 

[proserpina]

Or a split evolution for Dragonair. I think that'd be a better long-term solution.

I think de-evolution would be cool in a spin-off, but it just seems inappropriate for the main games. Evolution can be stopped and you can find out so much online/in guides that you needn't evolve Pokémon just out of curiosity any more. I just don't think it's an appropriate or necessary thing to add. Evolution should be taken seriously imo.

 

[voicerocker]

A devo stone from day 1 would fix all this.

Since the Everstone already prevents evolution, there is no need for a "devo stone".

 

[Divienne]

I would not want de-evolution. I think it would ruin the feel of playing the game with your evolved starter.

 

[The Outrage]

I know I wanted a devolution back in the day when I found out what Dragonair evolves into. >>

Why you hate Dragonite's design? I think it's adorable.

He'd be adorable if he evolved from a Pokemon that looked like him. D8; He evolves from one of the beautifulest Pokemon in existence, but instead of being beautiful and graceful like Dragoniair, Dragonite is this big goofy ugly Barney-esque dragon. It's a shallow thing to say, I know, but Dragonite is just ew compared to Dragonair, and I vowed to never evolve Dragonair again that day 13 years ago. A devo stone from day 1 would fix all this.

Preventative care is key. Always wear an everstone

I've already highlighted earlier in this thread how none of the benefits of de-evolution are actually exclusive to it.

 

[Natural Harmonia Gropius]

You can just startle the Pokemon out of evolving anyway...

 

[Faye Scarlet]

I was talking about back in Gen 1, when I first discovered Dragonite. D8 There was no everstone back then. Nowadays I know better. But a devo stone would still be neat to have...