I'm not sure where you're getting at...? What I'm saying is that they probably never intended to make Z due to the sales of past third games, in addition to how X/Y sold. You put two and two together, and it doesn't take an expert businessman to know that the trend would spiral downward, so it is quite a solid prediction of Z's fate.
Third versions always sell less, but there are reasons for that. Obviously there are no solid numbers for it, but think about how many people buy both copies of a duo of games. That's already a +1 in sales for every time that occurs. But you can't really do that with a third version. Then there are matters of system longevity (Crystal, B2W2 being released at the end of their system's lifespan), competition from other titles... Of course their sales will be less, they're counting only one game, not two. What matters is if the sales alleviate the production cost. Speaking of which, since the third versions are already mostly complete (due to the duo already containing most of the third game), the production costs are lower, so it isn't as crushing when the sales turn out to be lower, too.
I disagree. If you felt it had a poor story and many things that can be expanded on, that's fine. No reason to utilize resources and money to create the same thing for the sake of patching up plotholes. In the past this may have worked, but this isn't how Pokemon gaming used to be prior. From what the numbers tell me in sales, people aren't willing to shell out money as much to buy the same copy of Pokemon games that they had before. It's really as simple as that. It's safe to say that most people have realized that third games are basically glorified DLC at this point and you're paying ~$39.99 + tax for it.
I don't quite understand; what exactly are you disagreeing with? You don't think XY should have had more content and a more refined story since they weren't planning on making Z?
I already did mention in this topic, however, that I'd be happy if the main duo of games had the extensive content and solidified plot that we've come to expect of third versions. I'd rather not, as you put it, spend $40 on glorified DLC. But since XY didn't deliver on that front, some people, myself included, would have liked for it to have some sort of redemption. And it's not just the plot that needs fixing--the region, the content, improving upon features they already have. Again, I'd rather the practice of "not-as-good main duo and enhanced third version a year or two later" be dropped entirely, but only if the main duo actually turns out with a good story and acceptable content. Otherwise you'd be spending $40 on a game with a poor narrative and not much content, which isn't much better.
That's fair. My opinion is that Kalos isn't worth the time anymore. It got its spot in the limelight, and...everything turned out to be a mess. The characters, the general construction of the plot, the evil team, the general pacing of it all...you'd have to scrap the entire plot of X/Y, re-do the characters whilst simultaneously trying to introduce some new enticing game mechanics (because every third version introduced some new game mechanics of some sort) to give people a reason to buy it in the first place. That just doesn't seem worth the time and effort.
It's fine that that's your opinion. And there are definitely others who share it. But there are some who share my opinion, too, which is why we would have liked for a "Pokémon Z"--we think Kalos has enough potential for a game to redeem it.
There's no reason for me to view S/M in a poor light or as cynical as some people (apparently including yourself? Correct me if I'm wrong here) are doing. We are literally given no news about an evil team, no news about the roles of the two legendary Pokemon or the third accompanying legendary, no news regarding any sort of deeper lore in the region itself, no news regarding much of anything yet. To suddenly have such a low bar of expectations for a region which all of us are entirely uninformed of much of anything, especially considering the apparent amount of overhaul this region is getting, is a little presumptive, don't you think? Although certainly valid somewhat, but yeah.
I'll try to keep this as brief as I can: for ORAS, I only wanted three things. Character customization, which I think was a poor choice to exclude but I can overlook it in the general sense because it was not featured in the original games. The Battle Frontier, which was originally in Emerald but a bit ambitious so I'll try to forget that it wasn't included. And Gym Leader rematches, another feature from Emerald. The Gym Leaders are all listed on the Trainer's Eye app, the app that tells you which Trainers can be challenged to a rematch and lets you know when they're ready. The Gym Leaders will never be ready. They cannot be re-challenged.
As presumptive as it may seem, until we get concrete proof that SM will offer more than XY/ORAS, I will not think they have the potential to be greater. You bet on horses based on their track record. Based on Pokémon's most recent track record, I will not be betting on it until I see solid proof that SM will be better than gen 6.
And if you acknowledge that Z would add what's already there, then Z would just add more plotholes into the existing ones, therefore not really solving the issue of character development, plotholes, among any other issues that X/Y had.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. It's okay if you feel that Z wouldn't fix what XY did wrong. But in my mind, I see it like this: XY had holes that needed to be filled. By adding
into the holes, you fill them. That's why I would have liked to see a Pokémon Z.
