Should Pokémon keep having two versions?

[Sheep]

Main generation Pokémon games almost always come with two versions. What do you think of this? Would you prefer a single version, or do you like it being two?

 

[GameBunnyAdvance]

I'd prefer a single version. Whilst I can understand the decision behind having two versions of the game, I do feel that it is painfully outdated by modern standards. We live in a digital age where it has never been easier to connect to friends to trade and battle; the need for two versions to facilitate this has long since passed - it passed with the fourth generation in fact - and their stubborn insistence is maintaining two versions comes across as needlessly traditionalist at best and unforgivably greedy at worst.

 

[Devalue]

One version. What benefit is there to two? To encourage trading? Only ever liked Wonder Trading.

 

[Setsuna]

I know releasing two versions has always been seen as this underhanded dirty sales tactic, but I feel like there's always been some sort of charm to how unique it is? There aren't many games that do that sort of thing, and I think having a choice between what legendary you want at the very least makes both feel more valuable.
It's probably one of those series traditions they have trouble letting go of, but I'm perfectly okay with it staying. Most people don't tend to buy both, and I'm okay with having those 10 mons to finish my pokedex that I have to ask a friend for, it gives me an excuse to get in contact with them and a least bond over something because I'm not super into the raid scene or anything.
I don't think two similar versions are really necessary, but I definitely don't mind them. I think I'd be more disappointed if they stopped having two versions in the next few gens than if they continued.

 

[Nah]

If they're going to keep doing the two versions thing, I'd like for them to at least try to have meaningful differences between the two versions. It's pretty much always just been a handful of version exclusives, which box legend you get, occasionally a small, non-reoccurring difference (like say which antagonist team you deal with being slightly different in Ruby/Sapphire), etc. The original intent behind the decision--encouraging interaction between players--can be done plenty of other ways, and even if there wasn't separate versions, people still have reason to trade anyway.

 

[Squirtkipfan01]

i prefer one vers, like legends did. But as long as they insist on version exclusives being a thing, 2 versions are here to stay

 

[Alex_Among_Foxes]

I don't have an issue with 2 versions, but it does start to agitate me when they start releasing 30/35 dollar paid DLC for each version. Nah, f*** that. It started with that stupid US/UM thing they did a few years ago, and while to their credit the 'Ultra' version did have some notable (not necessarily all good) changes, the idea that they chose to 'remake' both S & M instead of just making a 'Yellow' version is where the real greed started kicking in. I like having the 2 versions, I like having the extra save for Nuzlockes and such, but having to shill out $100 TWICE just to have the same content on both games is completely absurd and greedy.

 

[Corveone]

In terms of Pokémon availability, the two versions system give players no benefit at all. It would be allways better if you could obtain every Pokémon in the region without needing to trade for a few specific ones you can't find in your version.

As I mentioned in another thread, I believe both version exclusives and trade evolutions are obsolete concepts, they're supposed to encourage trading, but people have plenty of reasons to trade and interact with other players regardless so there's no real need for these kind of gimmicks to make them feel like they have to.

I personally just google search which of the two version's version exclusives look more interesting to me and I pick that version, even if I can trade I never actually liked playing with traded Pokémon.

The only positive aspect (other than more money for Gamefreak) that I see from having two versions is that there's sometimes cool ideas implemented around this concept, for example in SV you get a different "final boss" battle, or in Sw/Sh you can get a couple different Gyms depending on your version. I think those are more clever way to make use of the two versions rather than purposely reducing Pokémon availability for no good reason.

 

[CoolKid575]

No, I just don't see the point. The original purpose of having 2 versions was to make it so people have to trade and utilize the multiplayer features... but it's not 1998 anymore. I can trade and battle people all over the world from the comfort of my home; I don't need the extra push to use the online when it's practically the whole post game! There's also the fact that having 2 versions makes it completely impossible to complete the game without finding someone to trade with; which is a massive pain when playing some of the older titles. It's a relic of another time that's only kept around for tradition and money, boot it.

 

[Janp]

I get the point of it when you had to get in physical contact with someone to trade. It served as a motivation to get together. But it's outdated idea nowadays. I don't think small changes in the game world are enough to justify two releases or even a third version now.

 

[ReKoil]

I don't mind it, but I do feel like they could implement it a lot better.

Like, they were on the right track with the version exclusive gyms in Sword/Shield imo.
With 8 gyms you're never going to get all types as a gym, why not give each version a completely different set of gyms? The version specific gyms do need to have more distinctiveness imo. They pretty much just reused the same one and gave it a slight change to get a more fitting feel for the other versions gym. Like in Circhester you navigate the same room for the gym challenge, but one is in a sandstorm and the other in a blizzard.
A completely different set of gyms for each version, with the gym puzzles and layout actually differing would've been great imo.

Combine that with something like Black/White's Black City/White Forest to make locations that are completely different between versions, as well as different 'evil' teams between versions like in RS, and you can actually make two distinctly different versions that actually feel worthwhile, rather than just 'the same game, but with minor differences'.

 

[Harmonie]

I don't think that the two versions should continue, no. It's outdated. Even if their original idea was to encourage trading, I think a different way to achieve that would be coding different copies (or perhaps just randomizing when a new save is made) of one game with a couple or few different variations of Pokemon to be found.

I don't know how technically complicated that would be to achieve. I'm not a programmer. I suspect that the only reason they make two versions is for the money, so I don't see this ever changing even if my solution were to be feasible.

 

[Alex_Among_Foxes]

I don't think that the two versions should continue, no. It's outdated. Even if their original idea was to encourage trading, I think a different way to achieve that would be coding different copies (or perhaps just randomizing when a new save is made) of one game with a couple or few different variations of Pokemon to be found.

I don't know how technically complicated that would be to achieve. I'm not a programmer. I suspect that the only reason they make two versions is for the money, so I don't see this ever changing even if my solution were to be feasible.

I... Don't mean to be rude, but with the only way we have of properly backing up our Pokemon being a paid online only '''service''', anyone without internet or other friends who not only play Pokemon, but also either enough of them to find all the randomised mon placed in the game world, or are willing to restart their game enough to find them all, would be completely screwed over. No way to save the mons they already have, plus no really viable way to get the rest. With HOME being the only real method of saving Pokemon that exists at the moment, this idea really isn't viable at all. I'm really sorry.

 

[Firebolt]

Two versions definitely seems pointless when you can easily join an online raid for the version exclusive mon you're missing, nevermind the fact that it only makes completing the Pokedex more of a chore at best. Even box art legendaries arent convincing enough, as a lot of people who want the other one would just do a speed-run of a second profile to get an extra of their version to trade with someone else.

 

[Maserati777]

It made sense for a 40 dollar game. But the Switch games are not 40 dollars. So it doesn't make sense anymore.

Also it kind of sucks that Scarlet has Koraidon which can't climb up mountains or hills right. Like for a pokemon that is supposed to be your main transport it shouldn't be sliding back down a mountain.

 

[Drayton]

I stick with single version. Reason behind having different version is makes people trading their version-exlusive mons in order to complete their pokedex as both different games have different pokemon that normally available on your version you have. Online service isn't cheap either and home as well as well as main series game are not cheap they just want to cash more money

 

[icycatelf]

Doesn't bother me much either way, but one version would be convenient now that online trading requires a subscription. Two versions is a better marketing strategy though.

 

[giradialkia]

I mean, they've ditched the "Gotta catch 'em all!" slogan these past few games, but at their core, the games are all about friendship.
So they're always going to want to give people a reason to connect, and with a single-version game, that… doesn't exist.

Look at Legends Arceus. They made it so you didn't need to interact with people whatsoever, by introducing the Link Cable item, and making the trade-evo items work as standard evolution items.

At this stage, pretty much everyone has decent internet access, and the ability to trade for what they need, when push comes to shove. So I'm okay with paired releases, and I've even become okay with the abolition of the third-version in favour of DLC.

For Black/White(2), Sun/Moon(USUM) and Scar/Vi, they generally made the version differences a little more worthwhile than just version exclusives, with differing characters and locations. I did love how the apparent regional Professors of the games were both the parents of our friend Arven, and it was an especially cool twist that

Spoiler:

we technically never meet them. They're dead for the duration of the story; we first see Koraidon/Miraidon escaping Area Zero, after losing their territory-battle, which is when the Professor is killed. Such a crazy twist.

The decision to double-down on the notion highlighted in ORAS that each game is its own contained universe, has allowed them to get a little more flexible with version exclusive features while still keeping both games reasonably equal.

 

[_confused_piplup_]

I think i don't mind, but as mentioned, there are some benefits in having one Pokemon game. I'd say that story-wise it can be good to just have only one version of the story. For once, Pokemon Scarlet and Violet made something good, because at least there are several changes between the games.