If you can believe it (and, to be honest, we can't) it has been a whopping 15 years since Pokémon Platinum first arrived on Western shores. It has been a decade and a half since we first met Giratina and co. A decade and a half since we stepped foot in the Distortion World. And, most importantly perhaps, a decade and a half since we last got an 'ultimate' third entry to a Pokémon generation.
We'll dowse ourselves in Repel Spray before taking a step further — yes, you could count Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon as a 'definitive' edition for Gen VII. In fact, we might even do the same. This is a pair of games that carried much of the same DNA as the ones that came before them (Sun and Moon, in this case) while adding new Pokémon, locations, and a fresh storyline. Sounds pretty 'ultimate' to us.
So, why are we focusing on Pokémon Platinum today? Well, first and foremost is the 15th anniversary (happy birthday again, by the way), but there's also something about Ultra Sun and Moon that makes it not quite click with the other 'third' editions like Platinum does. Red, Blue, and Yellow. Gold, Silver, and Crystal. Ruby, Sapphire, and Emerald. Diamond, Pearl, and Platinum. See what we mean? If you don't, it doesn't really matter. Our point is, 'third' editions have become a thing of the past.
The reason for their disappearance seems rather obvious when you think about it: why release a whole new game if you are only going to make a few tweaks along the way? (Hold on to those "Isn't that what TPC does anyway lol" comments for just a moment.) The fact is that, these days, the handful of additional Pokémon and expanded storyline that we saw in previous 'third' games feels a lot more like DLC than a reason for a brand new stream of development, marketing, and release.
The relative ease with which DLC and updates can be released in the year 2024 makes the need for a third, 'ultimate' generation entry feel a little pointless. But when has The Pokémon Company ever concerned itself with such trivial matters as "need" and "point"? Is internet connectivity and instantaneous updates really reason enough to end third editions for good? And, most interesting of all, would we ever like to see them make a return?
15 years ago, Pokémon Platinum brought us a re-run of Gev IV, yes, but with enough UI tweaks, feature additions, and general newness to make double dipping feel like the right choice. Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon did much the same for Gen VII, with a handful of visual changes to boot. Could you say, in complete honesty, that if 'Pokémon Indigo' (the ultimate version of Scarlet and Violet, naturally) [Pokémon Mauve, mate. - Ed.] was announced tomorrow and promised similarly minor tweaks in an edition that performed better than the originals, you wouldn't consider picking it up? Error or now, we know that we would.
It makes financial sense, too. According to Serebii's Joe Merrick, third edition Pokémon games have never reached the sales numbers of the original duos, but the totals are nothing to be scoffed at. Crystal sold over six million copies, Emerald and Platinum surpassed seven million and Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon even hit the nine million mark. That's a decent return for games that use the same assets, locations, and mechanics developed just years prior.
It's clearly a desire that has never left the Pokémon fanbase either. The world may have moved on, but we remember the certainty of those 'Pokémon Z' theories after X and Y were released (which we suppose now has some spiritual cache thanks to Legends: Z-A) and the same for 'Pokémon Stars' after Sun and Moon.
Both Sword and Shield and Scarlet and Violet opted for the DLC route. Through 'The Isle of Armor,' 'The Crown Tundra,' 'The Teal Mask' and 'The Indigo Disk,' we got our story and Pokédex expansions which may have previously been reserved for a third entry. The base games themselves were left alone (unfortunately, you might say) but the bonus goodies were there.
So where does this put things, going forward? Are third editions relics of a different era? Will Gen X, whenever that comes about (we're in no rush), continue to add bonus content in bursts of DLC or might there be room yet for the money-making 'complete' versions to make a comeback? Only time will tell, of course, but a little bit of speculation doesn't hurt until then, eh?
What do you think? Are 'third' Pokémon games done for or do you hope to one day get your hands on them again? You can fill out the following polls with your answers and then take to the comments to share any other thoughts.
Comments 116
I honestly and truly wish Pokémon games just stopped making two versions. Just make a game like any normal dev.
And if you need to expand the story post-release, then DLC or a sequel. Not the same dang game again but slightly different.
I kinda prefer another game with extra content/tweaks over dlc. I don’t like how I’d have to buy both games and the dlc on both games got get everything’.
3 low-effort lazy cash grabs? Thanks but no thanks.
Stop the multiple versions of different games thing, it was a 90s fad that’s long since since died off and it’s time Pokémon did the same, especially now that the games cost $60 each.
Haha lol no. I already hate how they do two versions. Greedy Game Freak, always making bad games for billions. Also out of my Pokémon phase gladly
There was never a reason for three versions, and that definitely has not changed.
Absolutely not
DLCs are cheaper (30$-35$ instead of 60$) and GameFreak actually has to add a lot of new stuff instead of rereleasing the same game again with like 5% new content (like USUM)
NO.
It's not right to pay $60 (or worse, $70) USD for a new game, only to have the developer go "jk yall, here's the REAL version, give us 60 more dollars" six months later.
No. The current DLC expansion structure is fine. And the idea of more Legends spin offs is even better.
Let's not move backwards anymore, thanks.
I think internet access and the ease of DLC has probably killed the third version off for good but I'm surprised GameFreak haven't continued with it.
Selling 6-9m copies of a re-release at €60 vs. selling 6-9m copies of DLC at €30 is surely a lot more financially lucrative.
@EarthboundBenjy 100% agree with you. It was a cool gimmick back in the day. It encouraged people to go out and interact with other to collect them all. But with the rise of online and you can now trade with a click of a button, it is kinda pointless to have to versions. I say we have one version of the mainline and then we can continue the legends series.
Firstly, two versions was a fun thing when we had to resort to Link Cables.
Secondly, a third installment always made the previous ones outdated. Very bad market strategy these days, no?
Lastly, wouldn’t they be better off packing the versions in the same game and you just chose one, or randomly got some exclusives/missed mons associated with your save so you had the need to trade for them?
Yes.
But it would need to come with the DLC's included.
I would rather have the third version than DLC... but I would much rather have a single complete game/story rather than two infinitely worse stories. Gens 3 and 4 were evidence that the split game concept hinders the games. Emerald and Platinum are my favorite games because they felt like the most complete games, storywise. Just imagine how much better the story of Scarlet and Violet would have been if we were given one complete game exploring both past and future paradox Pokémon. Imagine if we got fully realized Emerald or Platinum remakes for 3DS and Switch rather than the half-formed games we did get. The Legends games are proof that single game releases can work for Pokémon. GF and TPC need acknowledge that and move on from that outdated concept.
Pokemon in general kinda blows. I only like the N64 entries.
The third versions did often add a lot of cool features and some extra polish, but there's no reason they couldn't just polish and flesh out the base games more. I also like the way they do DLC, giving us a little self-contained bonus adventure to go on. Aside from that, it's weird how much negativity there is for the two game split. After this long, it's kind of ridiculous to see people still acting like the intent is to have you buy both copies rather than encourage you to play with other people. Either way, the strategy has clearly worked out for them, so I'd be surprised if it changed any time soon.
I think DLC has replaced the third game which I actually prefer, so no they shouldn't make a come back.
I don't think even the money and sales figures of third versions makes an argument anymore. While I have done zero research to back this up, I'd say the DLCs of recent gens sold plenty enough to cover that gap. The less expensive DLC that's available for both games is more in the "heck, why not" price range to attract more players than a full priced new game.
For the record, I don't mind the two versions still. It gives reason to trade with a friend or stranger to complete the dex. I don't see it going away for the mainline games.
I see some parallel with fighting games, which used to drop a new edition for every balance update or set of new characters. Hence the half dozen versions of Street Fighter 4, where nowadays they’re a single supported release.
Radical idea, but Pokémon is so exceptionally profitable I don’t see why they need DLC cycles to begin with. Just make a good full game and nobody will complain, look at Tears of the Kingdom.
@EarthboundBenjy Glad you got first post. 👍 I only came here to post - Counterpoint, just make 1 game and have the rest be dlc.
They should focus on making game 1 and 2 properly functional before making game 3.
Heck, make game 1 function properly before even considering splitting it into game 2.
Third versions used to be pretty hype for me. Yellow, Crystal, and especially Black 2 and White 2 are games I always held in high regard. Then Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon killed that hype for me.
You know for all the hate pokemon gets, I'm actually really glad they stopped doing third versions of games. I can't stand the definitive rereleases with no way to upgrade practice that Atlus does and third versions of Pokemon games were pretty much that.
DLC is a very good replacement for a 3rd version and in the case of Sword/Shield, you even got physical copy with base game + DLC all on the cart.
I'd say this should also apply to Atlus games like SMTV Vengeance should've been a DLC expansion for SMTV and the physical version being for those who want base game + DLC on the cart.
I’d rather just see enhanced remakes of the good old games, honestly.
I agree with the majority here: it should be a single game, and that single game should be more polished.
They can barely make one game as it is. Adding one more to the short development cycle would guarantee a buggy unfinished mess.
The only time I ever got a third version was Yellow and that’s only because that’s when I got my first Game Boy. Especially nowadays where DLC and patches are a thing I don’t see a reason to ever do third versions again.
I don’t mind having two versions of the base game though, if only for tradition’s sake.
The idea of a third version no longer sounds interesting if we see that with the DLC, we already have the expansion that they gave to the original game, cheaper, without the need to start the entire game from 0 and without the need to drastically change the story that we shown in the original games (ahem US,UM)
However, if a third version were like Black 2 and White 2, would it be worth it, since these "third versions" were not only an expansion, it was a totally new story, ""a sequel"", so, well, really that third version will be worth it
In any case, I would buy a third version, however, really, as I mentioned, a version like B2 and W2 would really give a significant boost to the generation that is implemented like this, not for nothing, that 5th generation has been considered one of the best, in one point, for this <expansion> in history
I think certain things can only be done with a new game, so I would have been happy with a third version.
But with that said, when they released those third versions - those were games I was happy to return to. Can't say the same these days.
A 3rd game is a cultural piece of history. It was good while it lasted but it's unnecessary right now
I’d buy the 3rd versions because I’m weak and like to collect games, but they are completely unnecessary in the age of DLC. Not to mention, we’re getting to the point where they’d cost nearly twice as much as DLC, and you’d only get the added DLC content anyways. That practice can stay dead.
Hahahaha, absolutely not.
I think maybe they just need to get the games running at a reasonable framerate first and then worry about fancy things later.
Feels weird this entire article seemingly went out of its way to NOT mention Black 2/White 2. I don't know why but it feels a conscious choice. Do those count as sequels more than a third game I guess?
I prefer the DLC model they’ve been doing. It’s more cost effective than buying the game again. The first three generations, I bought all three games for those generations… feels silly now. I just buy one a generation now and I’m more than happy to get DLC. I’d be ok if we dropped down to one version of the game rather than two at this point, as well.
If Pokémon games' quality standards these days aren't up to the same level as other Nintendo games, what difference does it make?
No that’s what dlc is for
I don't even understand why there are 2 versions to be honest. Aren't they the same exact game?
The third games were relics of a different era- modern day, easy to access DLC has made the concept more obsolete. That said, for experiencing Gen 2-4 in their original form, the third games are absolutely the best games to play; Crystal is a top 2 all-time favorite Pokemon game for me. I consider Pokemon Yellow to be a bit of a mixed bag when it comes to the third versions.
I'd only buy a third game if it was significantly different in content, probably enough to be its own entry.
Yes, because DLC doesn't fix the issues like third games did. Also, you can sell back the prototype version for near retail price and buy the third version with almost no money loss. You spend more buying DLC on top; good luck trying to sell back DLC.
Third versions only made any sense in the era before DLC, the DLC for SwSh and SV each added more content to their respective "base" games than any third version ever did, and that for about half the price of the base game, too.
I actually prefer a third version to DLC!
Hard to say really...I stopped caring long ago. Plus, I wouldn't forget the base game with the DLC Expansion included physically (Shield/Sword & Scarlet/Violet). They aren't any better considering their retail price is...wait for it...close to $90. Almost to $100 if we're talking sales tax in mind. And boy...you got pain soup for your stomach & wallet.
I'd rather have a 3rd version of a game instead of DLC for each game, but I'm also in agreement that we really don't need two versions to begin with anymore. We all know they still do it just to squeeze more cash out of the hardcore fans who they know will buy both versions of a game on release. (i.e. me)
USUM were an insult. The Sw/Sh DLC was abhorrent. The SarVi base game was the worst game I've ever played in my life, I'd rather cut off my thumbs than purchase the DLC that fixed nothing. This is not the discussion we should be having right now, we should be talking about how we can rescue the beloved series from incompetent developers hellbent on destroying all of the good will they built for 20 years. I say give the keys to the Legends team, quadruple their budget and double their development time. Nintendo should let them borrow some of the devs from Splatoon/Animal Crossing for the graphics and animations.
One and done. Double/triple dipping is a greedy practice that needed to have been stopped as soon as it began.
The problem for me is the cost. Switch games are double what 3DS games we're back in the day. I am less inclined to buy next Switch games now, and usually wait for the golden $80 to $50 price drop on used games out in the wild.
As much as I love these third installments, there are just so many other games to purchase on the Switch (including oodles of Pokemon titles) that I am just not inclined to go wild. However, if there were ports of old 'third' games that would be totally cool.
@SpaceboyScreams sounds harsh... but I agree with everything you said. They killed the franchise for me with the last 2 mainline entries. But sadly the sales say otherwise and people are still praising them for their "attempt" at open world, when they have done a horrible job at that too. They already had the budget and still created a mess of a game.
Also regarding the lack of challenge. People still defend them arguing that it's targeted for children.. C'mon! Very Poor excuse, children can deal much higher challenges than that and most R/B and G/S era are still buying these, so it's no excuse.
I thought that the idea for a DLC was due to the backlash from people getting tired of 3rd version, namely USUM
Whatever the case, I think having a DLC the better option nowadays. Regardless of their quality, I think GF was wise enough not to make an "enhanced" 3rd version for SWSH and SV and just released a DLC with extra stories
Nope, DLC is much better than paying full price again for a definitive version and that doesn't apply just to Pokémon!
No, DLC has fully supplanted third versions and that works much better. No sense in spending $60 for the same game all over again with a handful of extras.
@JimNorman I think there's a typo here: "Error or now, we know that we would".
Nah, I think with DLC they have made third versions obsolete. Certainly as the DLC is much more cost efficient. And this is coming from someone who has had every 3rd version from gen 3 onwards. I wasn't old enough to follow everything pre gen 3 but if I was at the time I likely would have had those versions too lol.
GameFreak only ever did 3rd versions because DLC sales on Nintendo platforms prior to Switch were quite small (or didnt even exist prior to 3DS). Now that Nintendo platforms have a strong digital ecosystem, doing normal DLC most other games is more than enough.
Two versions is already too much, and purely used for the money nowadays. (And arguably already just for the money back in the day if you ask me) So yeah, just stop, make one version, look how good legends was and that didn't need two versions, did it? It's unnecessary, there's no good reason to keep it, just give us the choice to choose between the legendary pokémon in-game.
@GamingFan4Lyf Pokemon from its roots has always had two versions with the purpose of having version exclusive pokemon. The base premise of pokemon of course was to catch them all, so having two versions would mean that you would have to trade with someone who had a different version to fulfill that purpose. Early ideas for pokemon actually involved each copy of the game being individually unique which was ultimately axed.
A large part of the outrage of the dex cut in SwSh was that as the pokemon themselves were the main content cutting them felt like less content, and being unable to fulfil the initial purpose of catching them all.
@westman98 I'd love to agree with this logic completely buddy, but I I'll be honest, I think the main reason was because nintendo's portable hardware lacked the capability for DLC pre 3ds lol.
Not sure how many people still buy both copies nowadays. Me and my brother used to get one each when we were little and it made sense, but it really doesn't so much nowadays. Just make a single version of the game, for the love of god. Any enhancements can be added later on with DLC.
No and I’m kinda done with dual releases too. Online trading has kinda killed the novelty of that.
I’d rather they release one game every 3-4 years and then support that with a couple of DLC packs. And not just packs bulked out with old Pokémon or another convoluted reason for all the legendaries. Not all continents have all wildlife it’s fine for this place to not have Sneasels.
If they did it right, if they took their time, each entry could last 4 years.
@Yozora146_ But the third version is the "complete" version right?
The main reason I don't buy pokemon games is because content is split between two or three games.
If there was a single game that had everything, I'd buy.
I'm not spending $200+ just for a single game that has the same or similar story but with slightly different content in the generation.
They absolutely should. The idea that DLC is better is based on the fallacy that everyone who plays these games will buy the original release. People used to be allowed to wait, and people going back and playing an old generation can play one game as the definitive experience. Now, a full Pokémon game costs $90, full stop. And paying for that extra content doesn't pay to fix problems with the original game's structure, design, or performance.
@GamingFan4Lyf Nope even that has some pokemon missing and therefore would require a trade in order to complete a pokedex lol
(Forgive me if I missed a possible joke there lol)
Before: Buy the third version for $40 and get the best experience of the current generation
Now: Buy the base game $60 and another $30 for the DLC to get the best experience of the current gen
This is the worst possible take. Yes, Ultra SuMo DOES count as a 3rd version. Yes, there's proof that a Pokemon Z WAS being developed but that's not what Legends ZA will be. And lastly, no, we absolutely do not need them to sell us a 3rd version game at $60 that's the same thing with a battle tower slapped on. The new dlc/ season pass model is SO much better, we get entirely new areas and stories and more Pokemon to catch at a fraction of the price. Why tf would you WANT to buy a $60 game instead?
No, because having to play through the story again is such a chore. It's essentially the FIFA approach to games, the same thing with a little tweak. DLC is better. Also, as it's not the 00s now and games aren't on handhelds made in 2D, I'd rather that time was spent on developing the next game because they churn them out too rapidly as it is.
Don’t care if this is unpopular, but the move to DLC instead of the third edition is one of the best things Pokemon has done on the Switch. I much prefer being able to play new content with my team from the original rather than having to start over.
I did not enjoy having to play 80% of the same game for Ultra Sun and Moon just to get to some new stuff at the end. The new stuff was great, but having to start from scratch to experience it wasn’t a good time. I personally think the third games are best left in the past.
@EarthboundBenjy my absolute favorite part of Legends Arceus was I could obtain every Pokemon from just that game. Made the whole thing so much more enjoyable.
Please, no more double releases. Pokemon and Atlus. Stop it. Everyone hates. it.
@Yozora146_ Nope, no joke here, I genuinely don't know.
When Pokemon started gaining popularity in the United States, I was like 16 or 17 (maybe even a touch older), so I completely "missed" Pokemon.
Still, knowing there is no "complete" version of any given Series would drive me insane.
Third version most definitely. DLC is not cheaper overall compared to a third version. To buy a full priced game with DLC that cost 50% more, you have to pay... 50% more. Because guess what, if you bought the original game, and you bought a third version, both at full price, you can sell the original version and get your money back. Then you've actually only paid one full priced game for one finished product instead of 150% of one full priced game for NOT actually a finished product.
I think DLC is the way to go, but I have no issue with an ultimate version with (both) games and DLC for the physical collectors.
Although I think they should go to a single version, other than tradition (AKA gouging money from die hards and completionists) there doesnt seem to be a reason too these days.
I would rather they put more effort into a working game.
No. The only reason you’re still reading this comment is to hit the minimum character count.
Recent Pokemon games have been disappointing compared to the earlier generations, especially after Generation 5. While Sun and Moon stood out as great additions, subsequent releases have been lacking, with each new installment seemingly worse than the last. The Let's Go games provided some enjoyment, but overall, the series has taken a downward turn. Personally, I stopped purchasing them after experiencing Pokemon Shield, which felt like a diluted version of what the franchise used to offer.
Rather than release third versions I think gamefreak just needs to make the base game more competent
@Yozora146_
That too 😆
I never bought a third game out of principle. Forget that. The two game gimmick is annoying enough. Not that I really care anymore though, I breezed through Shield and that was probably going to be my last outing with the series outside of watching my kids play it.
@JimNorman I had to look at that comment about Gen X and realize you were talking about the 10th generation of Pokemon and not asking if a generation of humans perhaps older than the franchise' target demographic, authoring DLC.
A third game is just rebuying the first game with a bit of dlc.
What I want instead is some love put into the game where they have more stuff to do post game like black 2 and white 2. I love pokemon but they have really lost what made pokemon so special lately.
I’ll exclude arceus as I haven’t played and I plan on it at some point
Nope.
They were exciting to get, but they're a really bad deal for players. It's either: wait ages after the initial games release for the definitive version, pay the price of a full game for a few new features, or feel like you're missing out.
The best thing if they want to do new games in the same region that generation are sequels. BW2 felt like they were fully worth getting after play the original Black and White games.
Nah. I honestly prefer the new approach that they’re doing. Also I’m probably the only person in this comment section that actually likes swsh and scar/vi.
No.
Plain and simple.
If they can't create a game that isn't a Titanic-sized disaster, then they deserve the suffering they give to fans right back by never buying their games again and completely disregarding the merch side of things to send a message.
Definitely. I might actually buy one if it happened
Absolutely not. GameFreak are under enough pressure as it is. With the imminent move to 2k and 4k development, assets will take longer to construct, so a 3rd SKU would not be feasible. The performance would be even more shambolic. They need to slow down the release of titles and focus on quality
I think they should do what Black and White did by making the third game a sequel, with more added features.
But I think it might be time for more interesting takes for the franchise then making a third copy that has the same story but with some more features.
(I voted for yes in the polls, but after doing that, I actually want a different direction for the Pokemon games nowadays.)
Nah. the DLC has filled the role of the third versions, I think. The DLC is preferable to me, TBH.
Go the opposite direction. The multiple-titles-with-barely-any-difference approach has been a cash grab since Day One. It might be the main thing that turned me off to the series (Goes back to playing the Zelda Oracle games).
I sorta don’t see the point in multiple versions as people will still trade. But it would be cool if the game could roll a randomized base set of mon since there are so many. That would also liven up trading but I am not sure how to implement that. Or just finally go mmo.
Nah, and kinda over with 2 versions of the game now. We all pretty much grew up with two different versions of Pokemon but I can just settle one. To expand on anything just release DLC.
Arceus legends proves one edition is just fine. I always thought 3rd versions were ridiculous even back then
Two versions was a fun community-building gimmick back in the day when trading meant you had to actually meet up. But with that aspect of it lost due to online trading, it just feels like there's no purpose any more. If you absolutely need to "force" trading (rather than just having it be an option to help them out if they're having trouble catching certain mons), then having some mutually exclusive choices, like starters or the old Hitmonlee/Hitmonchan situation, does the trick.
And if having two versions is obsolete, having three definitely is.
Well on one hand, the third versions of these games (Crystal, Emerald, Platinum) tend to be the absolute best the generation has to offer, since they get to iron out all the flaws of the original release and add content.
But on the other hand they could just make a good game to begin with. Like, it WOULD be cool to see a reworked version of Paldea that doesn't have hideous aesthetics and the most shallow gameplay in the franchise. But why the hell did it release like that in the first place?
I was just thinking about the lost "third" Pokémon games. I have two minds about it all-- Even though Yellow was the last time I played one (!). First, I feel that the 3rd game seemed to have the best of both games, which was a nice catch all for those without time and resources to have both games. Second, I feel the two game mechanic is an outdated concept that worked best when the world was nuts about trading and battling over GB link cable-- It was fun to make Pokémon exclusive to a cartridge, especially when money was tight for kids that couldn't have both games, encouraging them to "seek out" someone with the other game to "catch 'em all", and it also allowed Game Freak to rake in the extra cash. In summation, I honestly see no reason why they even bother with the two game system at this point, tradition or not-- Just make one game and stop making 2 games "a thing" so all the Pokémon are accessible to everyone everywhere.
It has been a while since I played Pokemon but there should NOT be twi versions of the same game anymore.
It would probably improve the story of these games if it were only one version. Imagine Ruby/Sapphire as a unified game with both team aqua and magma stories competing for players attention
There no longer needs to be two versions for Pokemon. The point of it was to meet up with your friends who had the other version and trade. Now you just trade online with randoms for the other version. Not as special feeling.
Just go to 1 version from this point forward. OR make it matter to have 2 versions. No reason to have both right now.
Personally I would prefer paying $180 for three broken games over $60 for one relatively functional one.
A third Scarlet and Violet with everything fixed would be tempting, but I would be too angry that they made a half-baked that I liked, and then sold me on a version they actually put effort into. If they want my money again, they need to give me high quality the first time around. Honestly, two versions feels too much at this point. S/V was great, but let’s move on.
I only really liked the third games when they put in new features and story elements and fixed issues however it's not really needed anymore since we have internet and can update existing games with all sorts of new content and fixes.
Sure you could argue that "what do I do when nintendo shuts down their servers and I can't update anymore, I want the updates on physical media!"
That's a valid point for sure and I hope that this is a problem that can be fixed somehow.
Personally I think the way to go then would be to offer a physical Pokemon Scarlet and Violet - "Complete edition" with all expansions and patches once the development on the game has ended.
Not everyone is going to care about this product, but for the people who do I think this solution should be good enough.
I think that would be better than releasing a third game.
In order to fill the Pokedex, you need 2 games? What is this forceful trade evolution that doesn't sync with the story arc? It's like charging two games after slight modification. This is criminal. Imagine having a Megaman/Rockman or Mario/Luigi that does the same. This is the reason why I stopped after Sapphire. No reason to continue pursuing.
To me, if they do the equivalent of a third version it should simply be a new physical realease 1-2 years later that includes the base game along all the DLC. Anything else than that it just feels off.
Even outside paying for the game twice, having to complete the game all over again just for the extra content they put along the way is definetly annoying.
Just two sentences into the article and there is already an inaccuracy. Giratina was introduced in 2006's Pearl and Diamond, not Platinum. Also why does nintendolife have to bring up Joe Merrick in what feels like every article. Anyone looking at the sales of the third versions of each gen could see that they sell less. It's not like Joe brought that fact to light for the world.
@Greatluigi Sword not as much - didn't even finish it myself, although I've watched others play it so I can see where you're coming from as there are some aspects of it I also liked - while Scarlet I'm quite enjoying (currently playing through the Indigo Disk) so no, you're not alone in liking those games in this comment section and even more so Nintendo Life in general!
No! Game Freak also have said they never want to do it again, now that they have DLC. The whole point of the third version was to do DLC storylines added on.
I'd rather see something thematically related like Legends Arceus to BDSP.
A third version with a 1:1 storyline retread probably wouldn't be what I want these days. However, I would love a Black 2/White 2 sequel, but still named like a third version. I know, it's certainly simpler to name a sequel with a number, but! Developers have talked about how numbered sequels have diminishing returns on sales. So, a third version naming scheme is still financially viable.
I'm excited for Pokemon Z-A, but I still dream of a proper Pokemon Z, with a brand new story set after the events of X and Y. Plus, the post-game expansion could take you to Venice-styled mediterranean islands!!
The third version games just made me feel bad for getting the earlier version games. I never double dipped for them.
Only if all of the issues were fixed- Imagine having to buy the game again because it was broken the first time....
I loved Arceus and enjoyed Sword. But with the recent news of pokemon getting DEI and even Nintendos crack down using copy right claimes on games, I might be walking away from Nintendo. They need to do better.
DLC feels like a much more natural way to expand on the base games these days IMO. I love the iconic gimmick of having two versions of most mainline Pokémon games, but I'd like to see even greater variations between them.
SwSh having a couple different gym leaders was nice, but I'd love to see that expanded to an entirely different roster of leaders depending on the game being played.
Perhaps even being on a different side of the story in the vein of Fire Emblem Fates (Birthright & Conquest). Scarlet & Violet was a bit of a letdown for me in that regard. Take it further or just make a single game (a la Legends).
@EarthboundBenjy came here to say exactly this. It's one of the main reasons I've never properly pulled the trigger with Pokémon.
@dew12333 How do you mean, the third versions are meant to be the definitive edition of the paired versions. Just compare how much higher in quality and content-rich Platinum was compared to Diamond and Pearl.
@xzacutor I'm guessing they make you feel bad because they cause you to have Buyer's Remorse?
@EarthboundBenjy That's the problem, though: Why just be like "any normal dev" when you can be yourself and do it the way that not only feels comfortable for you, but makes you stand out from the crowd?
@GamingFan4Lyf Yes, that's the point of them.
@OctolingKing13 I'm not sure why you don't understand the point of them making two games at the same time. It's so the players have incentive to trade Pokémon and such among each other. That's what the incentive's been since Red and Blue.
Short answer, no. TPCi/Game Freak have been greedy/slack enough as it this generation, and diehard fans essentially buying two copies of the same game is already ridiculous enough as it is (as complicit as I am in this practice) without adding a third (and in Ultra's case, FOURTH) version to the equation.
But so long as they continue producing DLC for existing games, I won't be quite so irate so long as there's a physical release with the DLC on the cart. I would have skipped Sword/Shield and Scarlet/Violet's DLC otherwise, despite how much I had otherwise enjoyed them (especially Sword/Shield's).
But I would absolutely jump at a "Platinum" update of BDSP.
For those who aren't diehard fans, you can just as easily stick to one version and use Home and/or transfer missing Pokémon from other games.
Honestly, I really think Pokemon needs a drastic change and should stray completely from the core formula. I'm glad the Legends series exists, and I'm especially glad Pokemon Z-A can be the "third" game X & Y never got. That's the direction I'd like to see from "third" versions, a brand new game but with the same/similar settings.
Tap here to load 116 comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...