Should Pokemon eventually get 4 or 5 stages of Evolution?

[Scrufox86]

I don't think it'd work. Why add another stage in the evolution lines when you could actually give evolutions to pokemon that are useless?. Like Luvdisc/Alomomola/Stunfisk/Emolga/Combee (male only) etc.

I think split evolutions would be a good idea for starters. It'll make things interesting. And also other pokemon getting split evolutions would be great. I just don't think adding evolutions to starters or other "three stage" pokemon would be worth it.

[CAH]

Just to make a Pokemon useful by adding a 4th evolution would be redundant.There are many approaches to this matter like adding useful abilities and move sets which are already in place.Adding a 4th evolution to some Pokemon would only make that some Pokemon more useful.There would be still other Pokemon that are less useful and Game Freak would have to think of ways to improve them in several Gens.Like you said, GameFreak is an creative unit and I am sure that they are thinking of methods to make other Pokemon more useful.

I am not complaining but if you follow the pattern of each Gen, there is an certain amount of new Pokemon that every Gen introduces and I am happy for that.

The 3rd stage is usually an adult stage for Pokemon as adding one more stage would be like adding an old version of our Pokemon.

Besides, if we are creative enough, we would not be typing this front of a computer( for me it would be my phone).

EDIT:I probably should be sleeping...it's 2.27am here.Just saying.

Whilst adding a new ability or move to a Pokemon could help in somewhat, an entirely new evolution could help even more so. Once again the example of Beedrill. Its stats and typing are pretty bad, and an evolution that could actually make it usable would be a nice addition to it's evolutionary chain. And yes, well done, the point WAS to make some Pokemon more useful. I don't know why you seem to have the idea that I'm saying EVERY Pokemon should have a 4th evolution.

I don't think you quite understand half of this discussion to be honest. I already stated that 4th evolutions having an impact on the number of new Pokemon in each gen was your assumption. It's very possible to introduce the same number of new Pokemon even whilst added new evolutions, and once again you talk about more Pokemon like it's a bad thing.

Not at all, it's a known fact that evolutions are based on life stages, and what would a pensioner do in battle? lol.

It's in no way a "known fact". Please describe how a magnet mixing with other magnets has anything to do with a human being growing up? Evolution is just a transformation from a Pokemon's former state into something more powerful, or something with more ability to battle/survive. But like I said even if the assumption that Pokemon are based on the life cycle of man (which is a retarded assumption), there would still be no logic for limiting it to "three" stages seeing as there can be multiple different stages to the aging of a human being.

I don't think it'd work. Why add another stage in the evolution lines when you could actually give evolutions to pokemon that are useless?. Like Luvdisc/Alomomola/Stunfisk/Emolga/Combee (male only) etc.

I think split evolutions would be a good idea for starters. It'll make things interesting. And also other pokemon getting split evolutions would be great. I just don't think adding evolutions to starters or other "three stage" pokemon would be worth it.

Some third stage evolution Pokemon are pretty bad however. I encourage giving evolutions to Pokemon that are pretty useless like you mentioned, but I think this should apply to any Pokemon that needs it, not just stand alone Pokemon, or Pokemon which only evolve once. Starters however I think should be left alone. They're already powerful, and they don't really require an additional evolution in the same way that something like Butterfree or something similarly weak for a third evolution does.

The point here would only be for Pokemon that actually need another evolution. Split evolutions are good too, but usually in those cases the third evolution is already decent.

[Green Blockhead]

Fourth evos would make no sense... it would just look weird.

The furthest we've ever got was the Eeveelutions, followed by some near-end-of-pokedex Pokemon getting alternate evos.

[voicerocker]

Some Pokemon are meant to be weak. Not every single Pokemon is meant to match up with each other. The Beedrill line is an example of one of those weak lines. Think about that: Beedrill (in its third stage) evolves at lv.10. The starters don't even evolve until around lv.16. Beedrill isn't meant to be just as powerful as Tyranitar or Garchomp or a Legendary Pokemon.

Personally, I think all Pokemon from Gen 1-4 should be left alone. No more evos or pre-evos for those. I'd be okay with a few from Gen 5 since they are the most recent Pokemon, but the main focus for GameFreak should be creating entirely new lines of Pokemon, not just adding more to old ones.

However, if they were to one day create a Pokemon with 4 stages, fine. But they shouldn't go back and add one to any older Pokemon. And it should be unique to the species. We don't need 50+ Pokemon with that many stages.

[broomstig]

while i dont think more evolutions should be added to current 3 stage bug pokemon, i think some of them should have been made with more evolutions than they do - bugs tend to go through a few metamorphoses in life, and this should be reflected in the pokemon world so when more are designed for the next generation there should be some bug pokemon that evolve more than twice. this would help with the fact that a lot of bugs are bad as they fully evolve really early on like beedrill and are therefore too weak to be of any use later on.

[CAH]

Some Pokemon are meant to be weak. Not every single Pokemon is meant to match up with each other. The Beedrill line is an example of one of those weak lines. Think about that: Beedrill (in its third stage) evolves at lv.10. The starters don't even evolve until around lv.16. Beedrill isn't meant to be just as powerful as Tyranitar or Garchomp or a Legendary Pokemon.

Personally, I think all Pokemon from Gen 1-4 should be left alone. No more evos or pre-evos for those. I'd be okay with a few from Gen 5 since they are the most recent Pokemon, but the main focus for GameFreak should be creating entirely new lines of Pokemon, not just adding more to old ones.

However, if they were to one day create a Pokemon with 4 stages, fine. But they shouldn't go back and add one to any older Pokemon. And it should be unique to the species. We don't need 50+ Pokemon with that many stages.

Whilst there are obviously Pokemon like Tyranitar or Garchomp that are more powerful than most Pokemon, it wouldn't hurt to make weaker Pokemon more usable. It's unrealistic to make every Pokemon as powerful as the previously mentioned powerhouses, however there would be nothing wrong with giving weak Pokemon the potential to at least be decently strong. This is the very reason that GameFreak even gives evolutions to previous weak Pokemon in the first place e.g. Yanma which was completely unusable before Diamond and Peral were released, or Lickitung which was below average. The argument that there should be weak Pokemon doesn't just clash with the idea of 4th evolution, it clashes with the idea of giving ANY weak Pokemon an evolution regardless of what stage it'd be in.

Adding loads of new Pokemon is great, but I personally feel that some extra evolutions per gen to fix or make usable previously useless Pokemon is something that should be done, in the same way that Diamond and Pearl did.

[Mystical Jackal]

You never know, anything is possible. Pokemon fusion was never possible until Black and White 2.

Pokemon fusion was something exclusive to the plot of B2/W2. You cannot fuse Pikachu with Bulbasaur, for example, though fusion had been introduced. Therefore, it is something possible in the Pokemon world, but you probably will never be able to do it in any rpg game.

And X and Y introduces the first grass starter not based on some kind of reptile or dinosaur.

Making a grass started based on an animal that isn't reptile or dinosaur isn't so drastic as adding a fourth stage to a Pokemon. Plus, it was never a standard that grass starter should be reptile or dinosaur, it was just a coincidence by now.

Besides, like I said in an earlier post, the stat thing could easily be resolved i.e. by only giving weak third evolution pokemon an additional evolution, or by changing the Pokemon in a way other than just raising stats.

Resolve the stat thing? You cannot make up for all the third stage Pokemons that got weak stats. Pokemons are different, some are strong and some are weak. Making the weak a bit stronger will make them look alike, and that will ruin the fun of the game.

[Dragontail]

Possibly. Alongside legendaries getting evos, that would make any Pokemon family useable.

[TheOriginalOne]

Doing so would be a great stupidity. Yeah, legendaries would become obsolete...

[deoxysdude94]

I don't think so. If it were to happen, the pokemon would be way too strong, considering they get stronger each time they evolve.

[Agonist]

I don't think so. If it were to happen, the pokemon would be way too strong, considering they get stronger each time they evolve.

Not necessarily, for example Scyther's stats just become redistributed when it evolves.

[CAH]

Pokemon fusion was something exclusive to the plot of B2/W2. You cannot fuse Pikachu with Bulbasaur, for example, though fusion had been introduced. Therefore, it is something possible in the Pokemon world, but you probably will never be able to do it in any rpg game.

Regardless it is still something that had never been done before, and the point was that any idea is possible, especially one that isn't even that drastic. Simply adding one more evolution is nowhere near as drastic as introducing two new types to fit in an already good type chart, adding abilities and natures or creating a physical/special split in moves.

Making a grass started based on an animal that isn't reptile or dinosaur isn't so drastic as adding a fourth stage to a Pokemon. Plus, it was never a standard that grass starter should be reptile or dinosaur, it was just a coincidence by now.

See the reply to your above comment. In addition to that, using your logic I could say that it is only a coincidence that there has never been a 4th evolution as of yet. Just because something has kept to a certain structure for a long time, does not mean it will never change. The grass starter example highlighted that.

Resolve the stat thing? You cannot make up for all the third stage Pokemons that got weak stats. Pokemons are different, some are strong and some are weak. Making the weak a bit stronger will make them look alike, and that will ruin the fun of the game.

Once again, I never said ALL. I said that some Pokemon would benefit from an additional evolution. Furthermore, how does a Pokemon's strength have anything to do with how it looks? I assume you meant they will all be equal in terms of strength? Once again "think outside of the box". Making weaker Pokemon a little stronger does not necessarily mean making ALL Pokemon equally strong. That would be unrealistic. However making some weaker Pokemon more usable would only improve the game. As I already mentioned, this type of argument isn't against "4th evolutions" as such, but goes against ALL evolution in general. I don't see how having weak and practically unusable Pokemon "ruins the fun of the game", seeing as it gives you the opurtunity to raise more things that previously were terrible. Yanma for example is a Pokemon I would NEVER raise before it had an evolution, however Yanmega made it usable. If we applied your logic of "leaving weak Pokemon weak" then to this day Yanma would still be another wasted space in the Pokedex that nobody would bother to raise. I'd say that weak Pokemon "ruin the fun of the game", not decent/strong Pokemon.

Doing so would be a great stupidity. Yeah, legendaries would become obsolete...

Another person who assumes that a 4th evolution can only be done by making Pokemon overpowered. Sigh, do people not even read before posting things like this? There are loads of ways to have an additional evolution without overpowering stats as I mentioned before in previous posts in the thread.

I don't think so. If it were to happen, the pokemon would be way too strong, considering they get stronger each time they evolve.

The same reply I gave to "TheOriginalOne" applies to you.

Not necessarily, for example Scyther's stats just become redistributed when it evolves.

You are the first person here that hasn't jumped to conclusions like "omg the stats would be overpowered". I wish more people would actually think. Scyther's evolution is a perfect example of how a Pokemon can evolve to become better than the original, but without a heavy focus on just increasing stats. It's stats were invested in different things and it gained a new type. Pokemon can evolve to become stronger without being overpowered. In saying that, Pokemon that already have weak stats would likely need some improvement in stats, but increasing weak stats would never make them overpowered, just more powerful than before. Nobody here is suggesting we drastically increase the stats of something like Dragonite.

[deoxysdude94]

Not necessarily, for example Scyther's stats just become redistributed when it evolves.

That is true, but that wasn't a 4th evolution. That was only one evolution.

[ShinyBlackWhite]

I am not in the mood as I said before for a 4th evo. However, I can Game freak adding more branched evolutions.

[Papousse]

I don't think a fourth evolution stage is ... natural. It's the same since Generation I and I'm sure it will stay the same as it is actually.

[CAH]

That is true, but that wasn't a 4th evolution. That was only one evolution.

Even so it is proof that increasing stats drastically isn't the only way to evolve a Pokemon. Regardless of how many times it has evolved, there is always a way to evolve a Pokemon sensibly without it becoming overpowered.

[Sealotic]

Do you consider the fact that some pokemons can evolved of my ways like Snorunt or obviously Eevee ?
I guess the answer is no. So I'm not against the fact of a 4th evolution because it would make more variety.
For the ones who are saying that it would make their stats too good, they maybe won't create new evolution after the currently last.
Baby form would be nice I guess for a bunch of pokemon that exist like Lapras, but it's my opinion.

[Shadow XD001]

I think evolutions are fine the way they are. No need to add a 4th evolution onto a Pokémon when there are some with only one evolution that could use another/pre evolution.

[ParaChomp]

Furthermore the limit is what separate the Pokémon series from the Digimon series.

Ah, playground arguments; I lost many friends...

Yes, some of the catchable critters are awful on the competitive spectrum. Whether it be the many bugs, birds, or water things. Some of the little guys you start with turn out to be awful. Even some legendaries join that pool. Don't forget the gimmicks.

The 2 evolution limit has been there from the start and I don't see another stage being implemented into the series anytime soon. Plus, do you remember all the hate the evolutions of older Pokémon got in generation 4? Yeah, imagine that happening again only this time there's a lot more carnage.

Smogon keeps telling you your favourites are awful? Sad truth; they're right but who cares? Use them anyways and challenge yourself. Be a gym leader and use a mono-type team where Charizard will be useful for that annoying Ground weakness if you plan to use Fire types. What's bulkier than Blissey? A Chansey with an Eviolite after a Shuckle has used Guard Split on it.

[blaze boy]

A Pokemon can evolve twice, however by the second time it has evolved it is the Third stage of its evolution line. This is suggesting a Fourth stage of an evolution line.

Incorrect. The pokémon stage goes like this.

Basic---> 1st Stage--> 2nd Stage

As you can see they evolve twice not three time, so yes your maths is wrong.

Secondly it is your view that evolution is based that way, however this is not necessarily the case. Evolution is based on a transformation and has nothing to do with age in the same way that humans grow up. In fact, using your logic there should be 5 stages: baby > child > teenager > adult > pensioner. Evolution is not the same as age, so it's not really a valid comparison, and therefore there's no limit on the amount of times a Pokemon could potentially evolve.

Okay take a look at Bulbasaur and the Ivysaur and Venusaur does that not suggest that evolution is purely growth.

Furthermore looking at Venusaur, who looks fully grown, how would it evolve, what would the evolution look like and lastly where would it stop?.

Lastly there are many other attributes that separate Pokemon and Digimon. If you think the three stages of evolution is the key thing that separates them you clearly don't know enough about either series.

I am well aware the other factor that separates Digimon from Pokémon but the point is that multiples evolution is a core mechanic of the Digimon series as the Digimon evolute from a wild monster to a more human like monster.


As lastly not all pokémon are meant to strong, that is what gives pokémon its charm that not all pokémon are the same.