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

(+) Yeah! (+)

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.

You don't need a dexit to promote underused pokemon, you can prevent pokemon home until the game is beaten or just delay it's use for the first couple months. As for PvP they can easily put restrictions on their tournaments.

Again the argument Game Freak used was they were redoing every pokemon from fresh and as such didn't have time to do all the pokemon. Which data mining showed was completely false and they were just porting the models from older games into Sw/Sh. Dexit existed so they had more reasons to sell DLC.

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.

As a game, disregarding the technical issues, S/V are substantially better than Sword and Shield. I dont even think its particularly close. There is so much more substance and things to do in general.

Dexit isnt why sword and shield are a straight line with nothing to do. Youre correlating the amount of Pokemon with the quality of the game, and that is simply not true. Sword and shield were stale on release and more Pokemon doesnt fix that. Making you pay for dlc to make the game anything more than painfully average is not an argument in favor of sword and shield

MNThunder posted...

You don't need a dexit to promote underused pokemon, you can prevent pokemon home until the game is beaten or just delay it's use for the first couple months. As for PvP they can easily put restrictions on their tournaments.

Again the argument Game Freak used was they were redoing every pokemon from fresh and as such didn't have time to do all the pokemon. Which data mining showed was completely false and they were just porting the models from older games into Sw/Sh. Dexit existed so they had more reasons to sell DLC.

That still doesnt make the concept of culling the pool bad tho. Gamefreak not doing anything with the game other than lowering the number is the issue, not the removal of Pokemon itself.

ssb_yunglink2 posted...

That still doesnt make the concept of culling the pool bad tho. Gamefreak not doing anything with the game other than lowering the number is the issue, not the removal of Pokemon itself.

Generally no but in this specific case yes culling the amount of pokemon to sell DLC and not to make the game better is a bad thing. Is dexit the biggest issue with Sw/Sh no of course not but it did still hurt the game.

MNThunder posted...

Generally no but in this specific case yes culling the amount of pokemon to sell DLC and not to make the game better is a bad thing. Is dexit the biggest issue with Sw/Sh no of course not but it did still hurt the game.

Yes its a bad thing in this specific scenario. Its not the concept, its that game freak executed it terribly.

If the game itself didnt suck there wouldnt have been nearly as much outcry

I thought this would be another Brexit-like term

Rotation for the sake of competitive balance is fine. But Pokemon Home shouldnt be a paid service if I cant transfer everything I have to the newest game. I shouldnt be charged extra because Im keeping up with the series.

Starks posted...

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.

Theyre still using the 3DS models and animations so that isnt an excuse.

ViewtifulGrave posted...

Theyre still using the 3DS models and animations so that isnt an excuse.

They change up the models in every game? You can't really see fur or scales in this one like you could with SV.

Its not as obvious as it was when they were pixel sprites, but probably because re-doing every model for every pokemon would suddenly be 90% of the development time compared to some pixel pngs.

Spriting can be just as harder or harder than modeling in some instances

Proto_Spark posted...

They change up the models in every game? You can't really see fur or scales in this one like you could with SV.

Its not as obvious as it was when they were pixel sprites, but probably because re-doing every model for every pokemon would suddenly be 90% of the development time compared to some pixel pngs.

they change the models occasionally, but not every game. ZA uses SV's models but with different textures plus less realistic materials. What it does add is a ton of new animations though

though that's still an improvement over SwSh where pretty sure it still had XY's textures just uncompressed

Doe posted...

Spriting can be just as harder or harder than modeling in some instances

yeah but for pokemon the sprites were mostly either static or (during gen 5) tweened, it was mostly the gen 5 mons that had some frame by frame animation, while the other mons were mostly tweens.

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.

Just going to point out some of loudest voices about Dexit were pissed at how quickly Charizard was made available (twice) and at the inability to commit cutting certain meta mainstays like Garchomp. Also the ones you named do/did see usage in limited format, but are generally overshadowed in VGC as a whole.

Proto_Spark posted...

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

BW probably scared them off of that.

Rath_Attack posted...

Just going to point out some of loudest voices about Dexit were pissed at how quickly Charizard was made available (twice) and at the inability to commit cutting certain meta mainstays like Garchomp. Also the ones you named do/did see usage in limited format, but are generally overshadowed in VGC as a whole.

BW probably scared them off of that.

The initial reaction to BW is probably one of the worst things that couldve happened to the series. After 4 gens, youre finally forced to abandon all of your old favorites on an initial playthrough, and it created a shitshow so bad that game freak has been pandering to earlier gens since

Literal next gen after, we get Gen 1 starters randomly gifted and they get mega evolutions. Not even the actual starters of gen 6 initially got mega evolutions. Charizard gets 2. Mewtwo, another gen 1 mon, also gets 2.

In fairness no gen 6 pokemon got mega evolutions. It was a mechanic specifically for old pokemon.

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

In fairness no gen 6 pokemon got mega evolutions. It was a mechanic specifically for old pokemon.

Diancie

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

In fairness no gen 6 pokemon got mega evolutions. It was a mechanic specifically for old pokemon.

Which kinda also ties into my point.

The regions main gimmick didnt involve the new Pokemon at all. Looking back it feels like they were just over correcting to prove they werent gonna pull another BW

DodogamaRayBrst posted...

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

There are already so many formats for this. Dexit is dumb.

Limited regional dexes are a good thing. Having limited national dexes is not.
The first gives a curated experience, doesnt overwhelm people with too many options.
The 2nd just denies people the ability to trade in their Pokemon .

I can agree to the central premise they gave for Dexit. That the size of the roster made it untenable to maintain while simultaneously allowing Game Freak to create a quality game. That is totally unstandable.

The problem is that they never actually fulfilled the second half of that premise. Like even if you like the post-Dexit games, I think you can agree they are a long way from quality and certainly not any notable step up from the pre-Dexit games. They are generally ugly, poorly optimized and frequently just not finished. And if that is the case then what did Dexit it give us? I suppose you could argue that without Dexit, the games would be even worse, which is probably true, but at that point I think issues are far more significant than roster size.

Every Pokemon game should follow the B/W formula of only having region/gen-exclusive Pokemon at first.

gen 5 showed how this SHOULD be done

your locked to the new pokemon until the post game

oh and for competitive play have a rotating pool of allowed pokemon and moves