Do we really need a trio of games per generation?
The alleged purpose of having two different games was so that people would make friends because they wanted to trade with each other. However, some people are loners so they buy two GBAs and trade with themselves. With the invention of online trading, people, for the most part, don't do this anymore. So, releasing two initial games won't be as profitable as it used to be. Releasing only one would also make it seem as if Pokemon sells more, as two scores would be combined into one.
This doesn't mean there couldn't be any exclusive Pokemon. The "sequel" game (The Pt to your DP), could have different Pokemon than the first game, and things such as console versions could have both sides of exclusive Pokemon, legendaries, and maybe a spare Pikachu or two for kicks.
The problem that I see with this idea, however, is just because it's tradition. It would be rather awkward for an Emerald remake to pop up instead of an RS one.
What do you think?
The alleged purpose of having two different games was so that people would make friends because they wanted to trade with each other. However, some people are loners so they buy two GBAs and trade with themselves. With the invention of online trading, people, for the most part, don't do this anymore. So, releasing two initial games won't be as profitable as it used to be. Releasing only one would also make it seem as if Pokemon sells more, as two scores would be combined into one.
This doesn't mean there couldn't be any exclusive Pokemon. The "sequel" game (The Pt to your DP), could have different Pokemon than the first game, and things such as console versions could have both sides of exclusive Pokemon, legendaries, and maybe a spare Pikachu or two for kicks.
The problem that I see with this idea, however, is just because it's tradition. It would be rather awkward for an Emerald remake to pop up instead of an RS one.
What do you think?
Last edited: