Jump to content


Do you think 493 pokemon are enough?


  • Please log in to reply
437 replies to this topic

#126 Guest_志貴七夜

Guest_志貴七夜
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 07:00 AM

Too many rarities...
  • 0

#127 Guest_nit3r0ad

Guest_nit3r0ad
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 07:01 AM

more...and they should stop at 500 pokemon..
  • 0

#128 Guest_gigaman2002

Guest_gigaman2002
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:29 AM

i think should have more
  • 0

#129 Guest_Sam 78

Guest_Sam 78
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:30 AM

I think that we should have 500 pokemons.
  • 0

#130 Guest_deon123

Guest_deon123
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 10:47 AM

i think 300 should be enough as u will waste ur money(in pokemon)by buyin lots and lots of balls to catch lots and lots of pokemon.therefore,i think 300 should be sufficient.
  • 0

#131 Guest_forgotten_qlutd

Guest_forgotten_qlutd
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 11:36 AM

so many,i want it less
  • 0

#132 Guest_Dark_Chaos92

Guest_Dark_Chaos92
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 12:08 PM

At first the 150 original pokemon were really cool... then came along the next generation (totodile cyndaquil chikorita and etc) and they were good but not exactly like the first 150, then came 3rd generation (Ruby Sapphire Emerald) and I found them a bit weird looking... and lately was the diamond and pearl pokemon, 4th Generation and I must say that they are just freakishly weird. I must say the first two generations were cool. If they are going to make more, they should focus more on the appearances because the DP pokemon are umm...... yeah..... I personally think the more the merrier but i hope the more the cooler too
  • 0

#133 Guest_kicer_james

Guest_kicer_james
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 12:10 PM

yaah.. they're too many..hehe..and they're even harder to catch when they're many..
  • 0

#134 Guest_pika124

Guest_pika124
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 12:34 PM

I think they should lower the pokemonI cant remember their names for the new pokemons lol
  • 0

#135 Guest_Sanity

Guest_Sanity
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 02:12 PM

I used to be able to remember all original 151 pokemon. Back then, it was possible to 'Gotta catch em all'. The first and second generation of pokemon did look like pokemon. But they all started looking weird after the third generation onwards. I think they should have less pokemon. Stick with the original 251 if possible.
  • 0

#136 Guest_Purz

Guest_Purz
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 04 June 2007 - 02:16 PM

386 is enought..
  • 0

#137 Guest_SleepiLee

Guest_SleepiLee
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 02:18 AM

386 pokemons are more than enough. I believe any more new ones will start to become a bore.
  • 0

#138 Guest_Nemodo_Destro

Guest_Nemodo_Destro
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:09 AM

I agree that if they're going to create a new setting they need to put new pokemon in that area. But with it they gotta keep the new pokemon as new feeling as the original 150. Which is no easy task. If they run out of new and good ideas... then they should stop then.
  • 0

#139 Guest_Zyxl

Guest_Zyxl
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:20 AM

they should add like 5 more at a time now, because they're just ruining it if they make 100s more... the original 150 were great, then the next group was pretty cool (because of the under evolutions (like magby)) but they should know when to stop.... I don't want the games to be horrible :laugh:
  • 0

#140 Guest_nguyende

Guest_nguyende
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:20 AM

I think 386 Pokémon are fine, and if they were to add more (which they have on Diamond/Pearl, I just haven't played them yet) I wouldn't mind... They should stop once they run out of ideas though, otherwise they woud be going overboard, and possibly lose some Pokémon fans out there.

Edited by nguyende, 05 June 2007 - 03:22 AM.

  • 0

#141 Guest_murderscene800

Guest_murderscene800
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:21 AM

i just wonder where they all come from..like how do people NOT explore different areas, and if these legendary ones are so powerful, wouldnt other people know about them? from older games?
  • 0

#142 Guest_vickssuperfalcons

Guest_vickssuperfalcons
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 03:32 AM

well i would definitely like to see much more pokemon, but i think that as they make more, they get more desperate so the ideas they come up with start to suck a bit, eventually all the good ideas will be gone and they start coming up with crappy ones (like in diamond a pearl: drifblim...its a blimp....who would have thought they would make a pokemon of that, or mime jr.? come on mr.mine was ok as it was, or how bout spiritomb? come on you have admit that was kinda desperate) and as they make new pokemon, the newer ones tend to look a lot more different complicated than the original ones. But still i want to see more pokemon and it would be great if they kept it simple
  • 0

#143 Guest_Sain Of Caelin

Guest_Sain Of Caelin
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 04:21 AM

They should switch out some old ones, keep some new ones, add more. Then end with 350.
  • 0

#144 Guest_droople

Guest_droople
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 04:30 AM

More time needed to collect all the pokemon if there are more than 386 pokemon in the game. Actually, I think 100 or 200 is already enough.
  • 0

#145 Guest_tmaz

Guest_tmaz
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 05 June 2007 - 08:44 AM

should have more
  • 0

#146 Guest_acassad

Guest_acassad
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 06 June 2007 - 12:23 AM

That is a fairly good number you have proposed, but I would suggest putting more common pokemonand fewer legendaries...they seem to be proliferating. I would also like to see an evolutionary chain longerthen 3 stages...perhaps 5?
  • 0

#147 Guest_DCR_Sean

Guest_DCR_Sean
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 06 June 2007 - 08:00 AM

Gotta catch them all. Right. Every last one of them.
  • 0

#148 Guest_eichi-kun

Guest_eichi-kun
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 06 June 2007 - 08:16 AM

I think we just need only six pokemon each type, train them until they can reach best level.Have many pokemon is sucks!!!
  • 0

#149 Guest_Oggy123456

Guest_Oggy123456
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 06 June 2007 - 08:35 AM

i dont care how many there are, but i trhink more should do it
  • 0

#150 Guest_MRegidijus

Guest_MRegidijus
  • Guest
Offline

Posted 06 June 2007 - 08:37 AM

I think they should have stopped at 386. The new ones are kinda stupid. =/

I think its enough
  • 0