Argue with me about that all you want, but that doesn't mean it wasn't just plain rude.
You know, it's possible to be civil on the internet. Most people just refuse to accept that.
I wasn't arguing that pokemon were based on the human life cycle, I was arguing that pokemon often appear to mature as they evolve, which means that assuming that it was based on the human life cycle actually wasn't as dumb as you were making it out to be.
You may have taken it to be rude due to your misunderstanding of how it was worded, but to be honest I don't actually care. If people are that sensitive they shouldn't be on the internet at all.
Maturity doesn't necessarily mean it's based on the human life cycle. I've already given tonnes of examples that contradict this theory. Mageton does not look more mature, it's just two extra magnets. Size and power is not always to do with maturity. The fact is, evolution is a metamorphisis, not aging. And the real argument here, is that the human life cycle does not limit this idea in ANY way, as shown in previous posts.
Similar to the transition between Scyther and Scizor, the main argument I see for a fourth-stage Pokemon in a line whose third stage is already very powerful is that they would have their base stats distributed differently rather than increased to fit the more mature Pokemon. However, Scyther and Scizor are the sole exception to the norm. In pretty much every other transition from a lower-stage to a higher-stage Pokemon, a Pokemon's base stat total increases.
Because Scyther and Scizor are an exception, it should not be used as the sole example of what a transition between the third and fourth stages of a Pokemon should be. It doesn't make sense that the transitions between the first and second and second and third stages of a Pokemon yield base stat increases, yet the transition between the third and fourth yield only base stat redistribution. This seemingly random inconsistency between the third and fourth stages of an evolutionary line says something about the third stage: specifically, it says that the third stage is already good enough for these evolutionary lines.
In other words, if the vast majority of evolution from one Pokemon to another involves the growth of base stat totals, then it should be the same for the evolution between the third stage and the fourth stage, no matter how powerful the third stage already is.
But at the same time, by giving only Pokemon like Wigglytuff and Jumpluff a fourth stage, the fourth stage would exist solely to make them better; the fourth stage would be done out of pity rather than for legitimate design purposes. And the three or four generations after they were introduced show that Pokemon like Wigglytuff and Jumpluff are perfectly fine with just three stages in their evolutionary line.
Scyther and Scizor is proof that the idea is POSSIBLE. It proves that there is no standard that MUST be folowed. GameFreak can change things when and if they please. Furthermore there are other Pokemon, e.g. Porygon 2 and Porygon Z in which the stats increase only a little but are redistrubuted into different areas giving them different purposes. It's very narrow minded to think that drastically increasing stats is the ONLY way to implement this idea.
No. In many cases the third stage is still weak, and therefore it would be beneficial to give it a fourth stage. In fact, even using the logic of everyone here that "omg evolution can only be done by increasing stats", SOME Pokemon wouldn't even become overpowered this way e.g. Beedrill. Your mind clearly isn't open to the idea of change if you think that everything in life must keep to the standard it has already been.
Your argument that "In other words, if the vast majority of evolution from one Pokemon to another involves the growth of base stat totals, then it should be the same for the evolution between the third stage and the fourth stage, no matter how powerful the third stage already is." is flawed, because you're suggesting that a Pokemon would HAVE to be overpowered just because in many cases evolution increases base stats drastically. Like I've mentioned A THOUSAND times, there are other ways to maintain the balance of the game. You just can't seem to grasp these concepts.
A bunch of reasons why they will not add a 4th stage in evolution lines:
1) A standard since Gen I is 3 stages.
2) Stats issues. Some Pokemon would get overpowered.
3) This is one of the basic differences between Pokemon and Digimon.
4) Apperance issues. Some Pokemons cannot become more adult-like as they already are.
5) Because of number #2, legendaries would become less attractive.
6) Reaching the final stage would require more time because of collecting experience and high level.
Above all, number #1 is enough. Nuff said.
1. Standards are constantly broken. The standard until the fourth gen was the fire was always special. After the special/physical split this standard was broken. Using your logic, no change should ever be implemented ever, because it would be different to what was there originally. This kind of logic is stupid and greatly reduces the scope of potential improvements that the games could ever have.
2. Already countered SO many times, but it's clear people have trouble reading. STATS IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO EVOLVE A POKEMON. IT IS POSSIBLE TO STAY BALANCED. And in some cases, increasing stats would simply make them DECENT not overpowered. E.g. Beedrill. Seriously, it's amazing I have to spell this out like this.
3. Already countered again. See previous posts on why this would in NO way make Pokemon to similar to Digimon.
4. Again, already countered. Piloswine, Electabuzz and Magmar are proof that you can easily add to an already adult looking Pokemon.
5. Already countered. Making more Pokemon useable would have no affect on legendaries. The only way legendaries would become redundant is by applying your retarded logic that a 4th evolution MUST make a pokemon overpowered. Luckily your view is just a misunderstanding of how this idea could work.
6. Already countered. There are other ways than levelling up to evolve a Pokemon, and Diamond and Pearl proved this when adding new evolutions. In fact, no new evolution has been SOLELY by levelling.
You entire post is proof that you're: A) unable to read and comprehend other posts before deciding to post your own opinion B) You enjoy repeating the same things rather than actually countering someone directly.
Unless you can bring something new to the table, there's really no point in you repeating the same things OVER and OVER. It leads to circular arguments, seeing as I then have to direct you to what has already been said that counters your points.
There's not really need to a 4th evolution. I mean, 3 is a great number. With 3 stages you can make a small/weak one, a kinda strong/medium-sized one and a strong/big one. A fourth evolution would turn all this upside down, and no current 3-stage evolution Pokémon needs a new evolution
That's a really flimsy argument. Your way of thinking is really black and white if you think that three is that only number of stages that would work. And I can name loads of Pokemon that could benefit from a fourth evolution, many of which have been mentioned e.g. Beedrill, Wigglytuff, Dustox, even Exploud.
Uh, no, it is not. No Pokémon needs a 4th evolutionary stage and I believe the reasons were already listed in the four pages of this thread.
LOL wow. You seem to have misinterpreted your opinion as a fact. There are plenty of Pokemon that could do with a 4th evolutionary stage, and I haven't seen ANY good reason as to why not that hasn't already been countered multiple times. If you're so sure, bring up one of these so called reasons, and for all our sakes make sure it's one that hasn't already been countered, because it's tiring having to repeat things to people who don't read.
