- Joined
- Jun 5, 2016
- Messages
- 11,647
- Reaction score
- 26,882
I actually prefer smaller rosters. They're usually more quality Pokemon and it's less of a hassle to remember them all. And they will not be 'running out of concepts' again and again.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I actually prefer smaller rosters. They're usually more quality Pokemon and it's less of a hassle to remember them all. And they will not be 'running out of concepts' again and again.
Dunno why 1000 pokemon is the 'death to the franchise' number. There's more than 1000 species of animal in the world and nature hasn't decided to pack things up yet.
I think they could have been strange Pokemon that are only catchable in a Beast Ball and freely roam the strange and distorted landscape of Ultra Space, but I was so disappoint.I dislike the Ultra Beasts. They could have made cool bosses, but Pokemon? Way to centralize the metagame for 7 ugly "Pokemon" (Nihilego is fine).
Perfect number would be 100 pokemon with 7-8 legendary pokemon.
Ehhh, honestly I would prefer no more than 2-3 legendaries per 100 Pokémon.
I also like less legendary pokemon and instead more normal pokemon but two are needed for the cover and some mythicals 1-2 mythicals at least for as movie pokemon. If there's also another pokemon like Rayquaza, Giratina etc. building a trio with the cover legends and 2-4 other legendary you can catch somewhere else, then it's already 9-10.
Well we got at least five per gen so only 2-3 is unrealistic.
If they release the next generation next year, it will probably be a rushed mess. But hey, that could very well happen.
A shame that it would still probably mean Generation IX for the 25th anniversary rather than Kanto/Johto sequels...