- Joined
- Mar 14, 2005
- Messages
- 19,897
- Reaction score
- 13,960
Going into this argument again is quite futile, but there is nothing obvious about restricting trades of evolution-like alternate forms (Rotom's as the case may be), while failing to do so for actual evolutions or a new event Pokémon. In all cases, the Pokémon addition is exclusive to the new game, and the only difference regarding alternate forms is the possibility to avoid a direct ban on trading - through automatically reverting the form against the player's will.Items yes, but new pokemon no, its ok for some items to restrict trade, with whirlpool I can see this more, but not new pokemon, there is a difference here, like restricting rotoms formes from being traded to D/P as they were not programmed into those games. Formes of pokemon restricted I can see, for obvious reason, but entirely new pokemon I still can't see being made just yet, not even for a remake, only you can see this as far as I know.
I understand that the move would be unprecedented, but if you accept trading restrictions as a general solution, then you should also agree that there would be no drawback to the implementation of my idea.
I specified in my reply to your original post what additional content it would have had, and a retread of Emerald's Battle Frontier is far from it. If you didn't understand what I meant about some things (such as the various portions of unused data), we can have this discussion over private messages. But the fact of the matter is that whatever you can say against a third game to FireRed and LeafGreen, applies just as well to a Crystal remake.Well, if you think there should have been a third remake to FR/LG, what extras would it have? A Battle Frontier? Which was in Emerald anyway and I doubt they could create a battle frontier in a remake, just to have one in Emerald anyway. Was there much difference between Blue to Red and Green at the time? Maybe it was because of Emerald that a third remake never happened.