Only 151?

UAProxy

New member
Sep 11, 2009
614
0
0
For me it's because most-all of the Hoenn/Sinnoh pokemon look so outlandish and in several cases silly. Some of them make me wonder if Pokemon Co. ran out of ideas (QED- Bidoof). The thing I liked about Kanto and Johto (and a decent number of Hoenn) pokemon is that they actually looked natural and organic. I don't need flaming-butt monkeys (or is it flaming butt-monkeys?) to make things more interesting, and in fact I would have been just fine if they only added about fifty or so new pokemon past two-hundred fifty-one. It would give them room to make some new, cool additions without having to pull things out of their asses to fill in the gaps. But that's just my two cents, and my party has always been retro in each game (with the recent exception of Absol overthrowing Pikachu) so I'm a tad biased.

 

El Poncho

Techno Hippy will eat your soul!
May 21, 2009
5,890
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Eh, they've been becoming less and less balanced with each generation, not to mention less and less imaginative. I really don't see how they can go past Arceus anyway.

Also, how about a new fire starter that isn't a fighting subtype? There's been fire/flying, Fire, and then two consecutive fire/fighting.
All I can think of other than a fire/fighting would be a fire/rock.
 

PureChaos

New member
Aug 16, 2008
4,990
0
0
i like the old ones. it's just that they went too far bringing more and more generations out
 

Deathsong17

New member
Feb 4, 2009
794
0
0
DeadlyYellow said:
Eh, they've been becoming less and less balanced with each generation, not to mention less and less imaginative. I really don't see how they can go past Arceus anyway.

Also, how about a new fire starter that isn't a fighting subtype? There's been fire/flying, Fire, and then two consecutive fire/fighting.
Less and less balanced? I think you'll find the opposite is true. This is true for the argument that they're same new thing with new Pokemon every generation; there are heaps of new stuff if you look hard enough.
OT I like any Pokemon I like; the new ones just give me more to love. Hell, Empoleon is almost as awesome as Charizard.
 

Azraellod

New member
Dec 23, 2008
4,375
0
0
i like some of the new pokemon. i object to the number of legendaries that are released each game, but aside from that it seems good to me.

however, i do think that the games were at their peak at the ruby/sapphire stage. the new versions have ruined pokemon contests (which i liked), and have slowed the game down with the constant graphical upgrades, which irritates me. sometimes i'm in it for the gameplay, not the overly complex looking moves.

if it were up to me, they wouldn't add all these extensive new features into every game. if you go on ruby/sapphire for an hour, then go on diamond/pearl for an hour, you will see what i mean. the constant unnecessary additions to battling for example, (animations upon entering, that sort of thing) do nothing but slow the game down.
 

Cortheya

Elite Member
Jan 10, 2009
1,200
0
41
Froobyx said:
Old ones for me. Like not the original 151 as such, but when Tracey was in the episodes.

Since Ruby and Sapphire I think they're kinda losing their imagination a little and just pulling stuff out the bag. Don't hate on me please :(
Oh god I remember Tracey....Brock Misty and Ash is all the show needed....
 

Davic

New member
Feb 20, 2009
17
0
0
I don't *hate* the new pokemon, but so many of the new one's fail to compare to the originals. An example is Miltank.

Also, it's annoying when anyone retcons something, and to see an awesome, rare pokemon have 3 different evolution/pre-volution stages added to is dissapointing. Who honestly can say that Pichu was an improvement to the game?
 

rokkolpo

New member
Aug 29, 2009
5,375
0
0
poncho14 said:
Jedamethis said:
Steel Penguins > Turtles
Flaming Monkeys > lizards
I've forgotten what the new grass is, but it's better than a.......thing
The new grass ones a turtle...
yeah a turtle with a tree growing out of his back!?
the cannon was cool but a tree come on.
 

Flamezdudes

New member
Aug 27, 2009
3,696
0
0
I'l admit, the newer ones aren't as good as the old ones. (Kanto and Johto) but there are some that i like, i can understand the hate that they get though.
 

Flour

New member
Mar 20, 2008
1,868
0
0
oppp7 said:
The original game was pretty unbalanced for psychic, from what I've heard. They had no significant weaknesses, several reductions, several super effectives, and an immune
The problem with psychics in RBY was that the special stat was used for both attack and defense. Most of them also had high speed and solid defensive abilities. Most types that had super effective attacks were also very weak against psychics because of type disadvantage or ow special.
 

toapat

New member
Mar 28, 2009
899
0
0
oppp7 said:
Why do so many people hate the newer pokemon? It seems like every time I mention the newer ones on a forum everyone says how there were only 151 (or 251) pokemon. Yes, the craze ended mostly in 2000, but as anyone knows the 2nd generation was already out by then. Everyone acts like the newer generations were just money grabs by Nintendo. That argument falls flat when you realize that Nintendo is a company, therefore its purpose is to make money. But it also fails when you think about the games. Do you think that Gold, Silver, or any other post-generation 1 games would have been as good if you used the same pokemon? I played Platinum, and you know which pokemon I hated catching? The originals, because they're so old and stale. The mentality of the games is to satisfy your urge to level (to phrase it better, the reason people like MMOs) and collecting stuff. And what happens when you finish collecting stuff? The best solution is to add more things to collect. Yes, each game doesn't add a huge amount to the last game (although a good bit is still added), but that can be said about just about every generation. So why do you hate all recent pokemon?
except for some starter tweaking, really pokemon has been decent overall, but they have had some quite terrible looking pokemon in D/P/Pt. some pokemon have gotten stale, others just suck. there will always be some crap pokemon.

honestly though, Arceus is a gimmic, a fucking god, who can use a OHKO attack when you catch it.

poncho14 said:
I love all the recent pokemon, I like seeing new things and what they've came up with.
thats whats cool about pokemon
 

Bob_F_It

It stands for several things
May 7, 2008
711
0
0
The people that hate anything post-Red/Blue (or Green) are fanboys of the old; don't feel that that Pokémon is the only franchise that suffers. I regularly see this opinion of Final Fantasy, Sonic (though a stronger arguement exists there) and Halo.

Perhaps people love a first game to bits, but when anything new is added to the mix, they refuse to adjust.
 

Mediteral

New member
Apr 15, 2009
112
0
0
rokkolpo said:
poncho14 said:
Jedamethis said:
Steel Penguins > Turtles
Flaming Monkeys > lizards
I've forgotten what the new grass is, but it's better than a.......thing
The new grass ones a turtle...
yeah a turtle with a tree growing out of his back!?
the cannon was cool but a tree come on.

Torterra Has a large tree and some mini-mountains on it's back, I think it's actually kind of cool
 

Aura Guardian

New member
Apr 23, 2008
5,114
0
0
Froobyx said:
Old ones for me. Like not the original 151 as such, but when Tracey was in the episodes.

Since Ruby and Sapphire I think they're kinda losing their imagination a little and just pulling stuff out the bag. Don't hate on me please :(
Please. Have you seen the new Digimon's they've made. If you think Pokemon lost imagination, look at Digimon. It's sad.

PS- I won't hate you
 

G1eet

New member
Mar 25, 2009
2,090
0
0
poncho14 said:
DeadlyYellow said:
Eh, they've been becoming less and less balanced with each generation, not to mention less and less imaginative. I really don't see how they can go past Arceus anyway.

Also, how about a new fire starter that isn't a fighting subtype? There's been fire/flying, Fire, and then two consecutive fire/fighting.
All I can think of other than a fire/fighting would be a fire/rock.
Fire/Dragon?

The only fire/rock I know of is Magcargo. And I didn't really like him that much... Camerupt wasn't so bad. He was, what, fire/ground?
imacharginmehlaz0r said:
DeadlyYellow said:
Eh, they've been becoming less and less balanced with each generation, not to mention less and less imaginative. I really don't see how they can go past Arceus anyway.

Also, how about a new fire starter that isn't a fighting subtype? There's been fire/flying, Fire, and then two consecutive fire/fighting.
yea they need a fire/water type...
[sup]yea...i went there[/sup]
Nah, the game would instantly crash.

Because you can't have Chuck Norris as a starter.
 

EscapeGoat_v1legacy

New member
Aug 20, 2008
2,788
0
0
I love all the Pokemon, with only a handful of exceptions. I originally had hated the design of the newest Pokemon, but having played Pokemon Platinum, I've found that they've grown on me.
 

ZeroMachine

New member
Oct 11, 2008
4,397
0
0
In all honesty, it's because some of the newer ones look a little weird. My favotite Pokemon "age" was the age of 251, Gold and Silver. But, I still enjoyed Ruby/Sapphire/Emerald for the gameplay, and some of the Pokemon are cool.

I think it's really just all about young people gettin' older. We look on to today's stuff and say "god, that's childish" even though if we were this age back when the original Pokemon came out we'd be saying the same thing.
 

DeadlyYellow

New member
Jun 18, 2008
5,141
0
0
imacharginmehlaz0r said:
yea they need a fire/water type...
[sup]yea...i went there[/sup]
Pfft. Chinchou is Water/Electric. Lotad is Water/Grass. There are numerous Water/ rock types. Frankly, I'm surprised there isn't one already. It seems the counter combinations are all the type they really have left.