The real reason for Game Freak's choice of visuals.

[JWeinCom]

Immersiveunreality said:

JWeinCom said:

If this is the argument you want to make, you'd have to address the fact that we've been drastically underpaying for Pokemon games for around the past two decades.  Despite the number of Pokemon going up by more than 500%, the price of the game had only gone up by 33%.  From 2006-2017, Pokemon prices were flat, despite 300 new Pokemon being added.  When you factor in inflation, that actually means the price of Pokemon had gone down considerably during that time period.  Pokemon Red and Blue were actually more expensive than Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon when you adjust for inflation.  If more Pokemon means the game is objectively more valuable, were you lobbying for price increases as they added more?

So, either Gamefreak has been drastically undercharging us, or there is not a direct correlation between number of Pokemon and the objective value of a game.

In my opinion (that is most likely not very popular) it would have been better to bring no Pokes from older generations at all and just focus on more new exciting ones,forever keep that pokedex is an unrealistic standard to always keep and only partly bringing the older gens pokes back will only "upset" people more.

I think Gamefreak needs some time to adapt for the consolemarket but they do deserve a bit of credit as this is their first consolepokegame in a long time,the game as a whole does deserve credit and not some "small" parts of it that are very paste copy .

Eh... I personally would probably not buy that game. I mean, they sort of did that with Black and White (new Pokemon until the post game) and I enjoyed it a lot less as a result.   I don't think they necessarily deserve any credit simply for making a console games, because a lot of developers do that.  All I'm saying is that arguing you should essentially pay per Pokemon is logically inconsistent unless you wrote Gamefreak a check claiming they undercharged you for Sun and Moon.