6th Gen What if instead of X and Y, all you got was one game?

Okay so this doesn't sound that bad, but consider this (there's a lot of what if threads floating around, but nothing like this!) The two legendaries would need to be crammed into one storyline, and you'd thus get a choice of them, the games likely wouldn't be based on DNA because there's no opposites in names going on and with it only being one game, it'd indicate that a pattern is changing, and that it might be the only game of the region. As well as this... you couldn't get an extra/other copy to store stuff on because it'd be basically the same game, and you could only journey the region once. On the plus side, you'd have to pay less for it because you're not buying both, you'll also not get version differences, you'll likely get a more-enhanced game as they're only concentrating on one and generally you'd have a real pattern breaker that could have potential for a really interesting storyline, if it was the sole starting game of the generation.

So, with this in mind, would've you preferred they announced just one game, rather than the two? Do you think the DNA/other suspected themes would still work as well without having the two games to fall upon? If so, expand on how this'd have worked out. If not, why are you glad it turned out the way it did - and what could they potentially ruin if they DID do this?

Yes, I would be very disappointed. Pokemon has always been about the trading and connectivity, and I simply do not believe the same can be achieved between 1 game instead of 2, where the developers can give us 2 very different games to share with each other.

I would be okay with this if it meant I could get all the Pokemon in that generation one way or another without trading. When you look at it, there really aren't many differences between different versions. There are a few more now (like White Forest/Black City) but even then that's kind of just a cosmetic difference. I don't think much would be lost.

I wouldn't be that bothered. It would probably mean a bit more content if they didn't have to develop version specific locations/plotlines.

Really the two versions just boil down to being a money spinner. One version would be enough.

Honestly I'd actually kind of prefer this. Excluding the mascot that you don't choose to receive, you're getting every other Pokémon from the region's Pokédex way easier, and you'd only have to trade for the other mascot. It'd be way more convenient, although it does break tradition and what Pokémon kind of goes for.

I think having one game instead of two wouldn't really be as great... and it would make it significantly less hard to catch them all and would also mean I wouldn't socialize...

However... I think if Pokemon ever did decide to just release an individual game instead of different versions, then I think having a butterfly effect deciding what Pokemon you encounter would be really cool. Where decisions like choosing a starter, choosing a specific route and saying "yes" or "no" would effect the Pokemon you encounter later on in the game.

I think that would be pretty neat and give it replayability. It would also get people to really seek out trades if they want a specific Pokemon.

However I would feel sorry for the person who gets swamped with all the Rodent Pokemon...

(sorry for going off topic a bit, but if it was certain you'd get all the pokemon in the new region then I'd be a little dissapointed)

As long as there's a reason to continue trading, I'm satisfied with either situation, really. It's that sense of opportunity cost that encourages people to trade and interact with each other, but that can be easily made up for with permanent decisions players are forced to make.

But thinking about the possible themes of DNA, it would make little sense not to have two separate games. After all, DNA strands have two separate but similar sides to them.

Interesting points you all brought up! For me I'm kind of glad they're separate, but on the other hand after the curveball with B2/W2, I did kind of expect that they'd change it up, and release just the one (if it was still based on the same theme) - Pokemon DNA, and within it, Yveltal and Xerneas would play big parts to represent that. I think it could be pulled off, but somewhat harder...?

I saw this in another thread, but with a DNA theme it almost wouldn't make sense to have just one game. DNA strands, and chromosomes by extension (the X and Y chromosomes) always come in pairs. With the genetics theme being speculated to be based off this it would only make sense to have a pair of games. Then again, that just fits in with the formula the Pokémon games have in general too =P

If it were Pokémon XY, would that make it a male game?

It'd be disappointed, but probably end up buying 2/3 copies of the game anyway. I think they could ruin that feeling of you having one version, and your friend or sibling having the other and having to play together to get everything.

I wouldn't like it. Paired versions are a constant for the series. Pokemon is partly built on playing with others, trading and so forth. Id likely get another copy anyway for more Pokemon, events and a place to store things, it's actually nice to have a pair of games for that reason, plus then you do not have to delete your save file to play again.

If what people are guessing that there may be a Pokemon 'Z' it may be like Emerald, combining both X and Y. But if there was only one game released like that I would be sort of disappointed. With two different games there's two different story-lines to follow. With only one there would be no challenge to complete the pokedex besides transfer/trading. There's always exclusive pokemon to each game so it would be boring not having to trade with someone else to finish the dex.

I'd never thought about it, but I wouldn't mind it! I'd still probably buy two copies...

I know this is just hypothetical, but they would never do that. Two different versions encourages trading because of version exclusives. They would by no means want to discourage trading. Releasing only one version would also lose them a good bit of money. A lot of players buy both versions. With only one version to play some players would only buy one copy. This loses them money so it would never happen.

I don't think they'd ever do that, cos having two games with similar features and Pokemon availability differences helps encourage trading so you can complete the Pokedex.

Having one game would render the purpose of version exclusives useless, and won't ring in the money. Also, having paired versions helps Game Freak make more money, cos some people may only buy one of the games, but they may end up buying both games, hence Game Freak makes more money.

they won't do that until the third part of the game like Ruby and Sapphire, then Emerald, If X and Y has a third part, because Black and White had Black 2 and White 2, if this gen has a third part it most likely will be called Pokemon Z

A guy explained to me that works at the video game store why they make two games per generation, he said one to make money, and two its like a competition to see which is better, in this case which legendary pokemon/plain pokemon (red, blue, green, yellow, fire red, and leaf green is the reason i say plain pokemon) is better/more popular.

Example: Like i said competition the guy told me its like a Burger King and a Mc Donald's, Mc Donald's has more sales than Burger King meaning more people prefer Mc Donald's (not really sure about that)

So lets say Pokemon Diamond and Pearl, Diamond had the most sales world wide saying people prefered Dialga over Palkia

Having one version of a pokemon game would be bad,it would take away the point of completing the pokedex and take away the feeling of being different from someone else with the game