You're perfectly allowed to be reminded of Digimon, but pretending this is a valid argument for being against 4th stage evolution is foolish.
Normally, Digimon have 6 stages of evolution, from Baby to Mega, and some go far beyond that. Just the prospect of Digimon evolving is already similar to Pokemon, regardless of how many stages either one has. Adding more doesn't add or take away from this fact. Digimon has far more differences to Pokemon than just how many stages they are able to evolve to.
If it reminds you of Digimon, fine, but it's an irrational, unsubstantiated comparison.
I didn't say it reminds me of Digimon. I said that it could potentially remind other people of Digimon.
And the opinion of whether or not a four-stage line reminds a person of Digimon would be used as justification not against the existence of a four-stage line, but rather as justification for disliking such a thing. These are two totally different things.
Comparing something which is a limatation to something which is a benefit is a really bad argument. Adding a 4th evolution in no way prevents anyone from doing anything, whereas your example presents an awful idea in which would benefit nobody. Adding a 4th evolution is NOT that much of a stretch. I don't see why people find the idea so impluasible other than because of the limitations of their own mind.
How would not being able to access Pokemon from gen 1 to gen 6 benefit absolutely nobody at all? There are people who wouldn't like being able to play the game with access to Pokemon from the previous six generations in a gen 7 game.
The idea may not be that much of a stretch to you, but the many other people that are against the idea disagree with you. And Game Freak not having implemented four-stage lines in the gen 4 or gen 5 games is evidence that four-stage lines haven't been needed. Even when they willingly acknowledged the power creep of gen 5, they still didn't bother to give any evolutionary lines a fourth stage to stand up to the power creep at all.
Using that logic, every evolution that exists goes against the design standard for that Pokemon. E.g. Yanma was made as a weak Pokemon, but GameFreak introduced an additional evolution to make it stronger. You can't argue against the idea of a 4th evolution without also conflicting with any evolution given to a Pokemon which didn't previously have one.
Beedrill is different in that Beedrill is a Pokemon that has fully matured (in the context of what's already implemented in the game; you can't argue with this). Beedrill's case is different than Yanma's case in that Yanma was only one stage, and therefore did not imply anything about its pinnacle of growth at all. Plus, adding Yanmega as an evolution to Yanma didn't stretch anything, since Yanma-Yanmega would have still been a two-stage line.
Giving a Pokemon line like Beedrill's or Butterfree's a fourth stage would mean introducing something that Game Freak has made no intention of introducing, which, again, is evidence that fourth stages to any evolutionary line aren't needed. Why they aren't needed can be debated, but if they were needed, Game Freak would've added a fourth stage to evolutionary lines long ago.
You said "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."
This shows that you think that this idea can ONLY be implemented by increasing stats drastically. You even go on to say "no matter how powerful that third stage already is", implying that you can only see this idea working if a Pokemon was made to be overpowered.
When did I say that it involved "drastic" stat increases?
"The vast majority of evolution from one Pokemon to another" involves the evolution from Kakuna to Beedrill as well as from Gabite to Garchomp. Both grow from a less mature to a more mature Pokemon. Kakuna has a significantly lower base stat total than Gabite does, yet both receive evolutions. Does that not mean that "no matter how powerful [the second] stage already is" that that second stage can receive an evolution, provided that its design doesn't convey a sense of having fully grown already?
Wow. Why on earth would you think that the reason for this would solely to be to break a standard? That would be incredibly stupid. Then they may as well implement random things that make no sense just to break standards. The argument here is that Just because something WAS a standard, doesn't mean it can't be broken. Secondly, it is not for Pokemon that were "perfectly fine", it would obviously be implemented sensibly e.g. on something that could do with an additional evolution such as Beedrill. Yami_wheeler even went as far to prove the possibility of creating this.
You say that a fourth stage would only be given to evolutionary lines whose third stages are not perfectly fine. You mention that Beedrill would have one.
But as shown by Game Freak not doing anything to the Beedrill line, Beedrill is a perfectly fine Pokemon that doesn't need an evolution.
Maybe in your limited mind, drastic stat raises are the only thing that makes evolution work, however a Pokemon can gain an advantage via redistribution of stats (porygon 2, porygon z/scyther and scizor) or from even gaining a new type entirely. Nobody said the stats would remain exactly the same, they simply would be sensibly altered either by redistribution or in some cases and increase (e.g. Beedrill has weak base stats anyway, so increasing them in no way makes it overpowered). Everyone on this thread who jumps to the conclusion "omg 4th evolution would make pokemon overpowered/legendaries redundant can't seem to grasp the idea that there are other ways of doing things.
Redistribution of stats still involves fiddling with stats, something that you said awhile ago did not have to happen upon evolution.
A Pokemon getting a new type without fiddling with stats at all makes the most sense if messing with stats isn't allowed, though it doesn't spark the "wow" factor that other evolution has. But that's a different story, and it can't be argued that such an evolution isn't plausible. It's totally acceptable.
Anybody who thinks Pokemon would become too much like Digimon by adding ONE ADDITIONAL STAGE of evolution clearly has something wrong with them. You arrogantly proclaim "there is no counter for such an opinion" but there obviously is. That opinion is called EXAGGERATION. The fact is, both series include evolution so they already had that similarity. 4 stages of evolution is nowhere near as many stages that Digimon had. This is a weak argument for why this shouldn't be implemented. There are tonnes of other things that make Pokemon similar to Digimon which are far more powerful and relevant examples than this.
Alright. Pokemon includes evolution. Digimon includes evolution.
Pokemon has up to two evolutions (three stages), whereas Digimon has probably six evolutions (seven stages). The number of evolutions that Digimon has implemented doesn't really matter, as long as it's more than Pokemon's.
If Pokemon introduces the ability to evolve three times (four stages), there is more overlap in the number of evolutions that Pokemon has and the number of evolutions that Digimon has. The number of evolutions that Pokemon would be able to have would be closer to the number of evolutions that Digimon would be able to have. Thus, at least to some people, Pokemon would be more like Digimon in this regard.
It's not arguable that the number of evolutions between the two series would become closer to each other if a fourth stage to evolutionary lines were to be added to the Pokemon series.
But yes, the slightly increased overlap between Pokemon and Digimon would have with each other is a weak argument against the implementation of four-stage evolutionary lines. But as long as the idea for four-stage lines is there, the train of thought I mentioned will still be there. While it may be weak to one person, it may be full justification for someone else, and as long as that someone else is happy, that's all that matters.
Piloswine, Electabuzz and Magmar LOOKED fully evolved. They still got evolutions. That was the point. Regardless of what stage of evolution they were, it shows that it's possible to create a new design of Pokemon regardless of whether it looked mature already. Also you're using the whole "standards should never be broken argument" which has already been countered several times.
The three clearly didn't "look" fully-evolved to Game Freak.
But again, why implement four-stage lines if it's clear that it's not needed, as shown by Game Freak not doing anything about giving four stages to the Pokemon that could have them if they were "implemented sensibly"? This shows that whereas standards can be broken, some standards are more easily broken than others without sparking a lot of anger.
What? by adding like a few extra evolutions it would be that game changing? This again goes not against 4th evolutions but ALL evolutions to existing Pokemon. This is nitpicking at its finest. Implying that legendary Pokemon would be that drastically affected by this is a complete exaggeration.
You clearly think that adding four-stage evolutionary lines to the Pokemon games wouldn't affect legendaries much, if at all, and that's perfectly fine.
But to others, the ratio of base stat totals of non-legendaries to base stat totals of legendaries would be considerably higher, which, to some people, is enough to make them dislike the idea of four-stage lines.
I don't need to, I've already brought my ideas to the table. I'm now simply countering everyone who's come up with flawed reasons as to why this could never work. I only have to repet myself because of people who clearly can't read or comprehend previous posts and therefore use the same things again and again. If people actually directly countered what I was saying, I wouldn't have to point out to them all the things that have already been said.
Actually, not a lot of people are arguing how this idea "wouldn't work". Many people are arguing about how they wouldn't like the implementation of four-stage lines, with their own personal reasons. "Countering" these opinions is fine, but it doesn't magically change how the other posters in this thread justify their opinions.
If your intention is to change how people think with your ideas, then it's clear that despite your efforts, the fact that people still use the same "flawed" reasons to try to "counter" your argument (ineffectively according to you, which is perfectly acceptable) shows that what you say isn't enough to persuade them to think differently. Therefore, you bringing new ideas to the table would increase your likelihood of demonstrating to other people that the idea of four-stage evolutionary lines is fine even with the pre-existing opinions that they had of them.
I'd say that gives it a perfect reason to warrant being needed. It's about making Pokemon more useable. GameFreak have already done the same in gen 4. This is hardly any different. And seeing as they're the company who actually make the games, clearly they see it as relevant to improve certain existing Pokemon.
Note that Game Freak didn't make more usable any Pokemon that already had three stages in their evolutionary line. They could've very easily given a fourth stage to the Wigglytuff or Poliwrath/Politoed lines. They only gave an extra stage to evolutionary lines that included only one or two stages at the time before it was implemented.
And besides, many of the Pokemon that they gave evolutions to didn't look to have "fully-evolved" potential (Piloswine, Togetic, Electabuzz, you've already mentioned a plethora more).
Wrong. Yanma wasn't given a second stage until gen 4. That didn't make it fine as it was. In fact, it was awful. Many Pokemon that could do with a 4th stage evolution have already been mentioned throughout the thread, one 4th stage evolution was even suggested for Beedrill.
I fail to see how Yanma not having been given a second stage until gen 4 had anything to do with that specific part.
Regardless, even if Yanmega is "awful", its increased base stats inarguably made it more usable. Whereas Yanma could only battle fairly against, say, 15% of all Pokemon, Yanmega could against about 35%.
Wow. So you're saying, that evolution shouldn't be given to weak Pokemon because apparently it's whole purpose is only about improving the design. Another narrow minded statement. The gen 4 evolutions on existing pokemon counter this argument, seeing as the the whole "pity" thing could be used against giving yanma an evolution, and yet GameFreak still did it. You seem to have you own ignorant ideas about what evolution MUST be like. I'm glad GameFreak don't have staff with your mindset, or there would be so many limitations to their game.
You seem to misinterpret what I say here.
The primary reason for introducing more stages to Pokemon is to improve the design of the Pokemon in that evolutionary line. The gen 4 evolutions for pre-gen 4 Pokemon actually prove this. For some reason or another that you or I may not agree with, it's quite clear that to Game Freak, evolutions to the Pokemon that they gave evolutions to improved the designs of their respective evolutionary lines.
If any random fan of Pokemon can think of an idea that quickly, then GameFreak can easily implement such a thing.
What I don't see you mentioning at all is the consequence of adding four-stage lines to the game. It has already been explained in other threads with these rather innovative ideas, and is evident by the number of people against this idea, but the fact that Game Freak hasn't implemented what has been proposed as an idea shows that the aftereffects of the idea are something to be considered as well. In other words, just because somebody can come up with an idea, it doesn't necessarily mean that the idea is necessarily good for the game as Game Freak sees it.
For example, take my idea of the seventh generation not including any Pokemon from gen 1 to 6 in its code at all. It's an idea that I came up with extremely quickly that could possibly be in the gen 7 games, but would it be good for the series? Most likely not.
You have your own reaction to the four-stage line idea, which I can clearly see based on your position right now, but there are people all over the spectrum on this. Some are easily persuaded and others aren't, and for the people that aren't easily persuaded, it's quite obvious that any argument for the idea isn't going to change their position at all.
