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.
