>>39852013Most players like Pokemon, having less Pokemon doesn't make sense.
>>39852012There are people that play a game 1 time, drop 60$ then never play it again. This is the exception not the rule. The people that continued to play the game were happy with bank. I didn't see a single negative reaction to it.
>>39852018>This is objectively wrongNope.
>adds nothing to multiplayer because there are already hundreds of pokemon to use and the pool of viable pokemon is potentially increased with fewer pokemonOk, I'll use your retarded logic, let's say there are 50 mons, out of those 50 10 are used the most. Then I add 200 more, Out of those 250 over 60 are used most often which is over 5 times more variety and choice to your gameplay. You are saying that this adds nothing to the game which is objectively wrong. You are not getting rid of people using what is the most powerful by cutting the numbers, your are making the list of viable mons smaller this is basic math dude.
>adds nothing of value to single player because the hundreds of pokemon in the game are just as usableYes it does become the hundreds of mons cut are just as viable.
>If this is your line of thought you should stick to gens 1-2 with the least amount of monsI and anyone else who isn't autistic and/or underage can replay gen 1 and 2 just fine.
