I'm not sure if anyone has made a topic like this before, and I apologise if they have, but hear me out.
As we all know, the main Pokemon games form a series, perhaps not chronologically but in the way that they share a universe, characters and sometimes even locations. Because of this, it becomes increasingly more difficult to retcon anything. I'll give some examples.
Firstly is the issue of new evolutions, and the ridiculous ways of achieving some of them. In my mind, there is absolutely no reason why Leafeon couldn't be evolved using the leaf stone or Tangrowth, Yanmega, Probopass, etc, through normal means from their previous forms. Obviously, there IS a reason for this, namely that the developers of Pokemon wish to avoid questions of why these methods could not be performed in other games.
My next point is a quick one regarding gender. Gallade is male only, wheras Gardevoir can be either. Froslass is female either, wheras Glalie can be either. Does this make sense? Would it perhaps make more sense for the evolution to split based on gender alone? Going one step further than perhaps I can, is it possible that the developers would have intended for this had they not wanted to break continuity?
Another important point is regarding Pokemon breeding and incenses. Again, these incenses exist solely for the reason of creating continuity with breeding from the previous games. But if you think about it, the fact that a natural creature would REQUIRE a man-made object to produce its young is weird at best.
One of the reasons that the developers of Pokemon feel the need to dance around these problems of continuity is regarding trading. If D/P had made Gardevoir female-only, then one would not be able to trade a male Gardevoir from the provious games. However, I believe there is more to it than this. Ruby and Sapphire, the first versions to date after Red and Blue to wipe the trading-slate clean with no compatibility with any other generations, still contained incense in order to breed certain baby pokemon.
So it seems that, almost entirely independent of trading, there seems a need to keep a continuity of Pokemon that is free of retcons by inventing more and more strange ways of explaining things. However, is this really necessary? Does it REALLY make less sense for a Wobbuffet to naturally lay a Wynaut egg, or for Gardevoir to be female only in Generation V? Comparatively, I think it's less important to be thinking about how it all logically links in with the other games and more important to consider whether it logically fits in with itself.
Gold and Silver actually provided one of the most drastic, direct retcons that can happen in a Pokemon game - Magnemite and Magneton changed types. Although arguably a less direct way around this (such as incense, etc) is not possible in these circumstances, the developers still took the plunge to correct something wrong with Red and Blue when looking from a Gold and Silver perspective. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with Gardevoir being both genders from a R/S viewpoint, but when the need arises, the developers shouldn't fear reinvisioning it through a D/P perspective and make it female only. What's more, Gold and Silver with its different types for Magnemite were actually compatible with Red and Blue's old type.
It is possible, both from a trading and a continuity standpoint, to correct these things, and I feel that this should be done as it is far more preferable to some of the ways they've found around it. I think the next generation should start Afresh, correct these things, and just accept that there's no explanation for it. There may not be, but I think the generation will be better for it.
Thanks for reading.
As we all know, the main Pokemon games form a series, perhaps not chronologically but in the way that they share a universe, characters and sometimes even locations. Because of this, it becomes increasingly more difficult to retcon anything. I'll give some examples.
Firstly is the issue of new evolutions, and the ridiculous ways of achieving some of them. In my mind, there is absolutely no reason why Leafeon couldn't be evolved using the leaf stone or Tangrowth, Yanmega, Probopass, etc, through normal means from their previous forms. Obviously, there IS a reason for this, namely that the developers of Pokemon wish to avoid questions of why these methods could not be performed in other games.
My next point is a quick one regarding gender. Gallade is male only, wheras Gardevoir can be either. Froslass is female either, wheras Glalie can be either. Does this make sense? Would it perhaps make more sense for the evolution to split based on gender alone? Going one step further than perhaps I can, is it possible that the developers would have intended for this had they not wanted to break continuity?
Another important point is regarding Pokemon breeding and incenses. Again, these incenses exist solely for the reason of creating continuity with breeding from the previous games. But if you think about it, the fact that a natural creature would REQUIRE a man-made object to produce its young is weird at best.
One of the reasons that the developers of Pokemon feel the need to dance around these problems of continuity is regarding trading. If D/P had made Gardevoir female-only, then one would not be able to trade a male Gardevoir from the provious games. However, I believe there is more to it than this. Ruby and Sapphire, the first versions to date after Red and Blue to wipe the trading-slate clean with no compatibility with any other generations, still contained incense in order to breed certain baby pokemon.
So it seems that, almost entirely independent of trading, there seems a need to keep a continuity of Pokemon that is free of retcons by inventing more and more strange ways of explaining things. However, is this really necessary? Does it REALLY make less sense for a Wobbuffet to naturally lay a Wynaut egg, or for Gardevoir to be female only in Generation V? Comparatively, I think it's less important to be thinking about how it all logically links in with the other games and more important to consider whether it logically fits in with itself.
Gold and Silver actually provided one of the most drastic, direct retcons that can happen in a Pokemon game - Magnemite and Magneton changed types. Although arguably a less direct way around this (such as incense, etc) is not possible in these circumstances, the developers still took the plunge to correct something wrong with Red and Blue when looking from a Gold and Silver perspective. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with Gardevoir being both genders from a R/S viewpoint, but when the need arises, the developers shouldn't fear reinvisioning it through a D/P perspective and make it female only. What's more, Gold and Silver with its different types for Magnemite were actually compatible with Red and Blue's old type.
It is possible, both from a trading and a continuity standpoint, to correct these things, and I feel that this should be done as it is far more preferable to some of the ways they've found around it. I think the next generation should start Afresh, correct these things, and just accept that there's no explanation for it. There may not be, but I think the generation will be better for it.
Thanks for reading.
