Confession: I hate the idea of a multi-region Pokemon game...

...both as a fan and a student studying game development. Even if Gamefreak had the resources for it and the cartridges (3DS or Switch) were capable of it, I feel like it would break the core concept of what Pokemon games are; starting from the bottom and making your way to the top. In theory, wild Pokemon could adapt their levels based on the player's current levels but it would just feel...wrong, to me.

And I know that in the anime Ash left his Pokemon behind with Oak (at least in Gen 3 from my knowledge), and I think this would be fine if the game left you retrieve said Pokemon once you reach certain areas (eg. you can withdraw Pokemon at level 30 once beating Gym A and being able to enter Route B) but it would still feel different from what a Pokemon game is.

To me, the ability to return to Kanto after completing Johto feels like a one-off. A sort of tribute that shouldn't / won't be repeated just yet.

I'm inclined to agree with you, we get more full-fledged, unique feeling regions because the game is centered around them. It would take too much development just for another region, and it wouldn't feel that much different. I wouldn't mind visiting 1 city of 1 other region in a specific game (sort of like Solsteim for Skyrim), but I think that's the maximum they should do. In all honesty, Kanto and Johto didn't feel that much different before the remakes, they had the same assets except for the music, which is not enough to really differenciate them.

See I think that could work if it was something like Solstheim was in Skyrim and Morrowind. But the only was I think it could work convincingly / with justification would be if the two regions were close enough to each other like Kanto and Johto.

If we get a region based on southern France or the southeastern part of England they might be able to justify visiting the central area, Azure Bay or the area based on Brittany.

Safebox said:

See I think that could work if it was something like Solstheim was in Skyrim and Morrowind. But the only was I think it could work convincingly / with justification would be if the two regions were close enough to each other like Kanto and Johto.

If we get a region based on southern France or the southeastern part of England they might be able to justify visiting the central area, Azure Bay or the area based on Brittany.

Click to expand...

Exactly, there was a lot of lore around Solstheim that justified why it was there and why it was so different from the rest of Skyrim. But just like it, a "multi-region" Pokémon would need to have that part much smaller than the main game, unlike Johto and Kanto. It would be cool for an England-based game to have a small part in say, Ireland or Scotland, but not a full fledged second region. It would be a breath of fresh air while still keeping the game on track and not costing that much in new assets­.

Yup, I'd say I agree with this, and it wasn't something I'd thought about much before now. Game Freak managed two regions in G/S/C/HG/SS because Kanto had already been established in previous games, I doubt they'd take the time to create two original regions for a single game. They've done a good job in some games making smaller post-game areas that don't qualify as full regions, such as the Fight Area island in Sinnoh, and that's probably the most we'll see in terms of additional post-game content that doesn't draw from previous games.

Not gonna talk about the level curve issues involved with having multiple regions because I've brought that up many a time before, but I think it can be done well. That doesn't eliminate all the other potential issues however.

Yeah. GSC & HGSS are gonna be the only ones with two regions. GF should focus on solo regions. Less issues with a solo region than two region games.