>>57830569>What is the point of these guys?There is purpose for Baby Pokémon.
For one thing, lore reasons. There's some Pokémon who really shouldn't be hatching from Eggs like Onix and Kangaskhan. Another one being like some have already said in this thread, for obtaining some Pokémon earlier.
Also, they're cute.
>>57834956Based on your post I'd like to say. Most Baby Pokémon are cross-gen pre-evos as for some reason every cross-gen pre-evo is also Baby Pokémon. So much to the point many think Baby Pokémon just simply means cross-gen pre-evo.
>What makes the babies so specialCurrently, gameplay-wise, it seems nothing. Or rather nothing good. The main thing that makes Baby Pokémon different from other NFEs is not being able to breed, which makes sense. A cross-gen pre-evo and really any NFE being weaker than what they Evolve into, also makes sense. But the problem is they don't give Baby Pokémon any significant enough gameplay benefits to make up for their gameplay downsides. So people see them useless weak filler when only considering them from a gameplay standpoint. Another thing, a Pokémon getting a cross-gen pre-evo bans that Pokémon from Little Cup, forever.
>>57834959This. Baby Pokémon are a good idea, just with very bad execution.
Like how there's plenty of existing Pokémon that should have a pre-evo, there's also plenty of existing Pokémon that should be Baby Pokémon. If all examples of those were considered then we'd be at around over a hundred Baby Pokémon, assuming those new pre-evos would also be Baby Pokémon.
>>57834970Good idea. It's similar to how in XY all Wild Pokémon with the Undiscovered Egg Group had three guaranteed perfect IVs, which meant Baby Pokémon too.
