Current Events > Hot take: Dexit is a good idea and conceptially makes Pokemon better

(+) Yeah! (+)

limiting available pokemon makes for more interesting pvp experiences and in pve forces you to not use the same favourite team youve used for 10 years and gives you the chance to discover new favourites.

In Reality: Lol, Gamefreak gonna gamefreak

The idea was that limiting the dex of each game would let them make cooler more ambitious games in other ways, but instead their games are still stuck over a decade in the past

Low tier bait

Gamefreak: Do the absolute bare minimum while being in charge of the most profitable multi media franchise in human history.

LordFarquad1312 posted...

Gamefreak: Do the absolute bare minimum while being in charge of the most profitable multi media franchise in human history.

The ROI must be pretty fucking high since the games still sell like gangbusters despite the low investment.

Each new gen means more models and animations to maintain. They already seem overwhelmed with local dexes to the point that the rest of the gameplay suffers.

Small team please understand

Jupiter posted...

The ROI must be pretty fucking high since the games still sell like gangbusters despite the low investment.

A former dev said ZA only needed to sell 200K copies to break even. I believe it has sold just under 6M copies so far.

Nah, they have the resources to hire a full team of balancers who could easily work full time to make sure all Pokemon are fully balanced. There is an upper limit to an ever increasing roster, but Pokemon is one that could easily handle it until they get to like 2000+. They just choose not to because they seemingly have no pride in the games, just another money maker.

I think it works for stuff like Legends games where part of the appeal is not knowing what Pokemon youre gonna run into next. Playing Legends ZA without spoiling the dex for myself has been fun

Dexit as a concept isnt bad. Most other monster catchers have a rotating roster.

The issue is the game surrounding the monsters needs to be good if youre gonna do this. If youre gonna limit resources, the time and money saved from that needs to go towards the rest of the game. That clearly did not happen

Fucking Pokemon

I was trying to figure out if Delaware was suceding, or Detroit, or Dallas, or...

ReturnOfDevsman posted...

Fucking Pokemon

I was trying to figure out if Delaware was suceding, or Detroit, or Dallas, or...

I think this one is entirely on you, sir.

i mean most people won't be transferring until postgame so that's kinda moot, and for pvp formats/banlists exist

Nemu posted...

Nah, they have the resources to hire a full team of balancers who could easily work full time to make sure all Pokemon are fully balanced. There is an upper limit to an ever increasing roster, but Pokemon is one that could easily handle it until they get to like 2000+. They just choose not to because they seemingly have no pride in the games, just another money maker.

rebalancing 1000+ unique creatures each with like 100 possible moves and 2-3 abilities each sounds like complete hell. Especially when it comes to having to do so for both a good jrpg progression and competitive

then again we got fucking Urshifu a year after dexit

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

I think this one is entirely on you, sir.

lol when I wrote that I assumed it was the name of one of the like 1200 Pokemon with awkward made-up names. I didn't realize until just now it probably stands for (poke)dex exit.

Dexit was the least of Sword & Shield's problems.

mehmeh1 posted...

i mean most people won't be transferring until postgame so that's kinda moot, and for pvp formats/banlists exist

rebalancing 1000+ unique creatures each with like 100 possible moves and 2-3 abilities each sounds like complete hell. Especially when it comes to having to do so for both a good jrpg progression and competitive

then again we got fucking Urshifu a year after dexit

It really isnt 1000+ cuz youd be counting final forms only for balance.

I also think its fine to have some Pokemon that are just bad. Does Raticate or Watchog need to be good?

they could balance which pokemon are most popular according to polls.

Jagus posted...

It really isnt 1000+ cuz youd be counting final forms only for balance.

I also think its fine to have some Pokemon that are just bad. Does Raticate or Watchog need to be good?

they could balance which pokemon are most popular according to polls.

i mean that'd still be like 400-600 or so unique creatures. But yeah some don't need to be good but that's what i mean with balancing for RPG and competitive purposes simultaneously. Some mons have to be balanced for being obtained early on and not needing to be great, others have to feel powerful for story purposes, but then you'd have to make it so those don't break the meta despite that and all

but the paradoxes exist

mehmeh1 posted...

i mean most people won't be transferring until postgame so that's kinda moot, and for pvp formats/banlists exist

rebalancing 1000+ unique creatures each with like 100 possible moves and 2-3 abilities each sounds like complete hell. Especially when it comes to having to do so for both a good jrpg progression and competitive

then again we got fucking Urshifu a year after dexit

It would definitely be impossible for a small but long franchise, but TPC could easily give Gamefreak the resources if they asked for it. From the way the latest leaks made it sound, they've been offered outside help and refused it prior, so it seems like the main problem is Gamefreak being a shitty company run by idiots.

mehmeh1 posted...

i mean that'd still be like 400-600 or so unique creatures. But yeah some don't need to be good but that's what i mean with balancing for RPG and competitive purposes simultaneously. Some mons have to be balanced for being obtained early on and not needing to be great, others have to feel powerful for story purposes, but then you'd have to make it so those don't break the meta despite that and all

but the paradoxes exist

Pokemon arent THAT complex, there are only so many viable moves and abilities for competitive purposes. I think balancing 400 creatures would be doable for the richest company, but I wasnt even suggesting that many. Just look at the top 100-200 Pokemon.

I also think people are overvaluing game balance in-game. There is not a single mainline Pokemon game that doesnt have game breaking strats. You could solo Diamond and Pearl with an Empoleon and Garchomp. RBY with a Nidoking.

They just need to balance the most popular ones imo.

Nemu posted...

Nah, they have the resources to hire a full team of balancers who could easily work full time to make sure all Pokemon are fully balanced. There is an upper limit to an ever increasing roster, but Pokemon is one that could easily handle it until they get to like 2000+. They just choose not to because they seemingly have no pride in the games, just another money maker.

Strongly disagree. More mons past a certain point doesn't really make the game better. A proper rotation between games and good spinoffs(not just F2p mobile stuff but also stuff like Pokemon Snap, Pokopia, Mystery Dungeon etc.) alongside the main game is best so we can enjoy all pokemom while still keeping things somewhat balanced, sustainable and fresh.

Rob_the_Ninja posted...

Dexit was the least Sword & Shield's problems.

Thiiiiiiis.

Pokemon's issues are because of poor management and short dev times. ~3 year dev times when you are a fairly small dev juggling multiple projects just isn't enough.

And even a massive budget is gonna strugle doing high quality animations and balance for over 1000 monsters.

Dexit was needed really but they didn't make the changes needed in addition to that. They've started turning towards the right direction by moving to 4 year gaps between generations. Here's hoping management gets the proper shakeups and they properly expand their staffing as well.

I'm honestly fine with not having every single Pokemon ever created available in every game. Playing rom hacks that have the full dex quickly reveal that it's simply too many Pokemon.

That being said, their excuse was that they could focus on making the smaller roster better through quality animations and then they release the game and it all looks like SHIT. It's kinda sad how terrible the 3D games look and I really wish people would stop buying them until the quality improves.

Yeah, I agree. Conceptually fine, execution/in practice it's lol.

Should've dexited with Gen 3.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

Dexit was needed really but they didn't make the changes needed in addition to that.

The issue was that their reason for dexit, they were remaking all the pokemon from scratch, was shown to be false and the fact they sold 2 DLC's with most of the pokemon not in the base game makes it feel like dexit existed to make it easier to sell DLC.

Dexit was objectively terrible. Players should be able to choose their experiences from all the options.

Jagus posted...

Dexit was objectively terrible. Players should be able to choose their experiences from all the options.

Nah.

Yeah. More options is always better.

I entirely disagree with that.

Removing characters is a necessity at some point in any franchise like this, but Pokemon is still the largest grossing franchise and has absolutely no excuse for bowing out as early as they did. Gamefreak is definitely not in a too many cooks situation, so their refusal to evolve is the biggest problem.

Okay fine but youre objectively wrong. Dexit didnt add positively to sword and shield in any way. It just pissed people off. No one went oh, this pokemon game is so much better than the last cuz my favorites are missing.

I mean, I agree with that. You must be misunderstanding.

No, Im not. Removing pokemon does nothing good for the games. More options is better.

On one hand, since we've stopped getting every pokemon everywhere, the pokemon that are in the game do so much more stuff. Every pokemon model now has a lot more activity and movement than earlier games, I imagine all that probably takes up a lot of memory, and having filler for 400 pokemon you won't even be able to get in the game to begin with feels like a waste of space.

On the other, I think I'd be more supportive had "dexit" if we get to go some games without like 40-50 of them being the exact same, and then every legend awkwardly hamfisted in through DLC or something.

Be Brave, GF. Have a game without Pikachu/Lucario/Gardevoir/Gyarados/Garchomp/etc...

Jagus posted...

Okay fine but youre objectively wrong. Dexit didnt add positively to sword and shield in any way. It just pissed people off. No one went oh, this pokemon game is so much better than the last cuz my favorites are missing.

But the concept of culling the pool of available Pokemon isnt the problem. It was gonna happen eventually, they just ripped the band-aid off.

Sword and shield doing ONLY that and not making the rest of the game better despite dexit is the problem. The game would not have been good whether dexit happened or not

That was one of the biggest problems. Dexit only made swsh worse, and not better.

I cant say i agree with it being a "Good" idea... but i definitely believe it was inevitable.

Jagus posted...

Pokemon arent THAT complex, there are only so many viable moves and abilities for competitive purposes. I think balancing 400 creatures would be doable for the richest company, but I wasnt even suggesting that many. Just look at the top 100-200 Pokemon.

I also think people are overvaluing game balance in-game. There is not a single mainline Pokemon game that doesnt have game breaking strats. You could solo Diamond and Pearl with an Empoleon and Garchomp. RBY with a Nidoking.

They just need to balance the most popular ones imo.

when you add doubles, thinking about team synergies, move/ability interactions, and even held items plus whatever the new gimmick of the gen is (which they should really lay off of by now) they really are that complex. Doubles especially being a factor since it's the main comp format and it's way more complicated than singles. Most games struggle balance with even like 50 characters, though that's more real time stuff which has its own struggles. But still, even if you're just "balancing the top 100-200" you'd still have to think of what new moves should the other mons get, unless you want the others to be left with their old movesets

and yeah in-game doesn't need to be super balanced but you do need some proper sense of RPG progression (and avoid an XY case where you can basically one-shot everything)

Though either way formats really fix a lot of the issues, making proper banlists and stuff. Hear they've been doing that lately but idk how thorough it is. Champions will maybe be a good help too since there you can continuously update mons depending on how things are currently instead of just once per gen and hope for the best

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

But the concept of culling the pool of available Pokemon isnt the problem. It was gonna happen eventually, they just ripped the band-aid off.

Sword and shield doing ONLY that and not making the rest of the game better despite dexit is the problem. The game would not have been good whether dexit happened or not

tbh it was just a terrible timing. Dexit happening on what's basically the most stale game in the series that brings almost nothing new to the table just amplified things a lot. SV has MANY issues with unacceptable presentation and performance, but i feel if it happened there it would've gone way smoother since they did sorta justify it with the open world, SV having a lot more animations for mons, and everyone getting retextured plus some fully new models here and there

Jagus posted...

That was one of the biggest problems. Dexit only made swsh worse, and not better.

Like i said, the game would have been bad no matter how many Pokemon were in it. The lack of Pokemon is not why it was bad. It was a poorly made game.

Other monster catchers have rotating rosters but the game surrounding them is actually good. Thats the difference here. The amount itself is not indicative of the quality

but The pokemon metagame has never had good balance, there have been overpowered strats in every gen, in-game and competitive.

Even now, post-Dexit, we still have incineroar, landorus, or whoever the hell is new jazz dominating. You said it yourself balancing 50 characters is hard. Unless youre advocating cutting the dex down to less than that, Im skeptical making cuts is the right direction to go.

Asking Gamefreak to balance the 200 most popular pokemon is probably equivalent to the task load they have now. By gen 4 there were probably already 200 fully evolved pokes, and no one said we needed dexit back then.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

Like i said, the game would have been bad no matter how many Pokemon were in it. The lack of Pokemon is not why it was bad. It was a poorly made game.

Other monster catchers have rotating rosters but the game surrounding them is actually good. Thats the difference here. The amount itself is not indicative of the quality

The lack of Pokemon did not increase the quality, it made it worse. Hence Dexit was a bad thing.

also, youre drastically overstating how bad swsh was. With the dlc, its a top 2-3 pokemon game. Better than scarlet and violet at least. And what did the dlc do? It returned old pokemon.

I wouldn't say good but I do believe the blowback is overblown. I do think their repeated excuses certainly didn't help the situation.

Also, when you factor in that they're basically holding pokemon hostage in Home, then it feels quite scummy.

No game needs (or in any way benefits from, more to the point) one thousand monsters. 'Dexit' is a meme spread by the same audience that raises Charizards and Garchomps every generation and not the Alomomolas, Miniors, and Tangrowths of the world. Every monster should be on rotation to get featured again every few generations, sure, but the notion that anyone is intentionally raising Bellossom in 2025 is comic. Four to six hundred in a given generation is probably the sweet spot because it balances monster diversity, developer effort, and game balance. This will still hold true when we break the 1200 mark, so Cramorant fans had better buckle up...or just go replay the games where these beloved monsters made their debuts in the first place.

Jagus posted...

The lack of Pokemon did not increase the quality, it made it worse. Hence Dexit was a bad thing.

also, youre drastically overstating how bad swsh was. With the dlc, its a top 2-3 pokemon game. Better than scarlet and violet at least. And what did the dlc do? It returned old pokemon.

I don't think Sword and Shield is better than Scarlet and Violet personally.

zinformant posted...

No game needs (or in any way benefits from, more to the point) one thousand monsters. 'Dexit' is a meme spread by the same audience that raises Charizards and Garchomps every generation and not the Alomomolas, Miniors, and Tangrowths of the world. Every monster should be on rotation to get featured again every few generations, sure, but the notion that anyone is intentionally raising Bellossom in 2025 is comic. Four to six hundred in a given generation is probably the sweet spot because it balances monster diversity, developer effort, and game balance. This will still hold true when we break the 1200 mark, so Cramorant fans had better buckle up...or just go replay the games where these beloved monsters made their debuts in the first place.

Different people like different pokemon than you. Most people like garchomp but not everyone has that as their favorite

Jagus posted...

Different people like different pokemon than you. Most people like garchomp but not everyone has that as their favorite

You're barking up the wrong tree; I have relatively obscure favorites. This is a game design argument and, frankly, a reality check.

Jagus posted...

but The pokemon metagame has never had good balance, there have been overpowered strats in every gen, in-game and competitive.

Even now, post-Dexit, we still have incineroar, landorus, or whoever the hell is new jazz dominating. You said it yourself balancing 50 characters is hard. Unless youre advocating cutting the dex down to less than that, Im skeptical making cuts is the right direction to go.

Asking Gamefreak to balance the 200 most popular pokemon is probably equivalent to the task load they have now. By gen 4 there were probably already 200 fully evolved pokes, and no one said we needed dexit back then.

yeah i'm just refuting to the claims that with the amount of money you can easily balance huge amounts of mons. The real answer is regulations and continuous balance patches like any other comp game (which is why i'm glad champions exists even if it visually looks like ass)

zinformant posted...

You're barking up the wrong tree; I have relatively obscure favorites. This is a game design argument and, frankly, a reality check.

to be fair up to swsh it does make sense since the mons had already been modeled and animated since XY, so at least having them transferrable wouldn't have been much of an issue.

LA onwards doing retexturing, and adding a ton of animations for every available mon, plus some remodeling, makes it actually understandable (now if only the environments looked good)

Sword & Shield had nothing in it. There was the Wild Area, and that's it. You go from town to town, gym to gym, with nothing interesting happening in between. No dungeons, no interesting story scenarios, nothing. I remember back in Red & Blue there were things like Mt. Moon, the electric company, waking up the Snorlax with the Pokeflute, traveling on the St. Anne. Sword & Shield has NOTHING.