Talk:Generation III

New environments can be explored: Underwater, Desert, Mountain and Jungle. - Jungle? Where is there jungle? Are you talking the really tall grass? I wouldn't call that jungle at all. And mountain is hardly anything new either. - Ferret 02:40, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, that is what Route 119 area seems to be. I mean what else can it be? It rains all the time there too. It could also be a rain forest. And I meant climbing the mountain.

L_X

Indeed. I remember mountains in Gen I and Gen II - but you always had to go through them or under them. Gen III has quite a few that you can go over. Mt. Ember, Mt. Chimney, Pyre, etc. etc.

Mt. Moon and Mt. Silver - you had to tunnel under things.

---

Hmmm. Okay, I'll give you the mountains, but I still think it could do with a slight word-change. Although I still don't agree with the jungle part. It's just really tall grass, it's not a crazy thought you know. And I know Pokémon is often random with climate placement, but to just stick a rainforest there seems way too random for me. - Ferret 03:05, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Also, are Channel and Box not Generation III games? I know they don't really feature proper gameplay, but they are released during generation 3. And they have the right Pokémon.... - Ferret 03:07, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Gen III

We decided only games that involved at least the basics of pokémon (ie, battling, trainers, etc) would be considered for generations. Games like Snap, Hey You Pikachu, Channel, etc are not considered in the Generations.

-Damian Silverblade

New Pokemon

This article claims that 134 new pokemon were introduced, bringing the new total to 386. Now I'm sure there were 251 pokemon in Generation II, so surely this means there were 135 new pokemon?Gastlys mama 18:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Change is 'style'

I'm not sure if anyone has openly stated this or discussed it. It just seems to be obvious to me and a couple of my friends that the Pokemon art styles and the way they look and feel has changed dramatically ever since Generation 3. The individual chracters seem to be in a different style. I am one of the people who are old enough to remember the good old days when there were just 150 Pokemon (latter, 151). Then Generation 2 was brought out and you adapted quickly to the new names and features. But Generation 3...I dunno, it just seemed to break a barrier and I'm pretty sure it's due to the new Pokemon 'style'. The art changed. The way things were done. Maybe they were just modernized. It's even more evident in Genration 4. In fact, the differences between Generation 1 and later releases have turned one of my friends off the games. She'll only play Red, Blue (or FireRed and LeafGreen). Maybe it's silly. Maybe if a Gen 4 Pokemon was taken back in time and released with Gen 1, I wouldn't have noticed the difference between it and the other 151. Am I being stupid or did Gen 3 change things? Bttsstewart 15:52, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it definitely did. I couldn't say definitively what, but I remember getting Generation II and it wasn't all that different from Generation I, but Generation III was just hugely different.Gastlys mama 17:49, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It may have something to do with the fact that Ken Sugimori isn't solely in charge of designing Pokemon any more. But I think this kind of thing is more suitable for discussing in the forums. Lucentas 18:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I would take it to the forums except I'm not really sure how to start a new discussion or anything like that... Bttsstewart 12:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

About sprites,and the general style

When you compare the Hoenn sprites to the sprites of the other regions,they seem..Different. More 3d,I suppose? Like,for example(bad example,but still),on the main trainers,their faces seem..Odd,you can't really see their eyes and expressions as clearly as the others sprites from this generation(FR/LG) and other generations. Is this me,or did the sprite style change for R/S/E? Lovely Rose 23:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"Trainer is about to use..."

Am I the only one who realized this feature was lost? I'm playing LeafGreen for the first time and I'm trying to level some low leveled Pokemon and while fighting trainers I don't get this option. It used to be when the opposing trainers Pokemon fainted and a new one had to be used it said "trainer is about to use _______. Would you like to switch Pokemon? Y/N" This gets annoying when I'm trying to level a level 3 pikachu or something while facing even slightly higher level Pokemon because it means i have to switch him in, he gets attacked THEN i can switch him back out. I'm fairly sure this feature was in Gen II maybe even Sapphire/Ruby/Emerald but it is certainly absent in LeafGreen ~~D558

Check "Options". ^tc²₆tc₂₆ 08:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I found it. Should I erase this discussion note? - unsigned comment from D558 (talk • contribs)

No. ^tc²₆tc₂₆ 09:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Unknown timeline

I added in the fact that unlike Gen I, II, and IV, Generation III's placement in the timeline is never made clear.

Yes, you can trade between it and FR/LG, but that does NOT mean that it's actually placed at the same time period, especially when taking into account the fact that you can trade between R/S/E and/or FR/LG and both Colosseum and XD simultaneously, despite it being impossible due to the fact that Colosseum and XD are canonically five years apart from each other. So, really, there isn't really any specification of Generation III's placement in the timeline (nevermind being placed in the same time as Generation I). They did reference Hoenn in dialogue, and the Lava Cookie, but that's only the culture and region, NOT the events of what happened in Generation III. In order to have Generation III be part of Generation I, either it or Gen I has to reference the actual events of that generation that happened fairly recently (For example, Generation IV started after Gold or Kris got the Mineral Badge, but before they got the Glacier Badge, as the beginning of the game was mentioning references the Red Gyarados incident as a live news report, as well as the fact that Jasmine was at Sunyshore City). Weedle Mchairybug 14:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh, technically, Generation IV's timeframe is also unknown. Nothing outright says that the news report at the start of the Sinnoh games is of the red Gyarados from Johto. For all we know, the red Gyarados from the news report is a different one. For all we know, the cameraman's placement in Platinum puts the alleged sighting from the report at Lake Valour, not the Lake of Rage. For all we know, the Sinnoh games could be a direct prequel to the Generation II games. Remember, the person at the Hotel Grand Lake giving cross-generation references does not mention any specific timeframes in either his Generation II or Generation III references. --Shiningpikablu252 15:51, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Smash Bros.

"It is the only generation not to have a playable character in the Super Smash Bros. series." - Trivia Section That's a very debatable statement. While there may not be any GenIII playable Pokémon, the Pokémon Trainer character is clearly based on Red in his GenIII outfit. That definitely counts as a GenIII playable character to me. --Dual 17:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Japanese text in English games: legit or cheat/hack?

Watch this video. How come Venusaur and Electabuzz have their names in Japanese if, theoretically speaking, games of different regions can't communicate without risking the save files before Gen IV? Pokemon lover 19:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It's only in the first two generations that games of different languages can't trade with each other without corrputing both save files. The third generation inherently has no such restriction; however, attempting to trade between languages a Pokémon that evolve while being traded, the game will freeze when the Pokémon tries to evolve (this can be rectified by an Everstone for those that evolve simply by trading, or by not equipping the necessary item for those that require an item be held while trading), and I've never heard of any reports of corruption.

My 2¢: The Japanese text is legit. --Shiningpikablu252 23:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

And you're right. I started playing FireRed in both Japanese and English and then used you-know-what to trade and battle and everything went up fine. Also, the Pokémon from the English versions that have more than 5 characters in their names will only come up with the first 5 characters in the Japanese versions, obviously. I'll try playing both games as far I can to see if evolution through trading causes the games to freeze, though. ;-) Pokemon lover 17:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The game'll freeze if you try to do an evolve trade? I've never heard that before – though granted I never heard of any such compatibility for GenIII *anywhere* before I tried it myself using real games, we really really need to put that up instead of claiming that IV was the first game to support this – do you think it'd kill the game or anything since technically it'd be in the middle of saving? I want to test this but since I'm using real games I don't want to kill anything... ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

oh whoops I type too slow. Still, though. Would it kill your game because of the freeze or is that just a myth like the bullcrap about trading between two languages not working? ▫▪Ťïňắ ^♫♥ 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's what I want to know as well. However, the language or region incompatibility isn't a myth when you're considering Gens I and II. ;-) Pokemon lover 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Just traded between an English and Japanese version of Emerald. The game didn't freeze when I traded a Graveler from the English or Japanese version to the other game. And it's probably self-explanatory, but trading and mixing records works fine. MagicBarrier 01:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't able to test evolution trades yet but linking an English and Japanese Emerald works fine as well. The same goes for Ruby and Sapphire but the emulator doesn't like cable linking so it throws communication errors often. I have to test some more things, though. Pokemon lover 14:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

"the most added since Generation I"

So, there's more than in Generation II? That sounds redundant...--Burgundy 23:50, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Notable?

Its the only Generation without a Fire-type legendary Pokémon. (the others Gens have Moltres, Entei, Heatran, and Reshiram). Vuvuzela2010 Δ 23:32, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Even number?

Generation V introduced 156 new Pokémon, did it not? I'm confused... Ṕїґαкα~Ṃḯṧтїкα 21:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The trivia says current total. Not introduced. The total number of Pokémon in each generation are 151, 251, 386, 493 and 649. Only one of those numbers is even. Werdnae (talk) 23:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Ah. That explains it. Thanks. Ṕїґαкα~Ṃḯṧтїкα 18:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Learn new move dialogue

Wouldn't it be considered a large improvement that the prompt to learn a new move actually shows the stats and description for said moves? Also, wasn't the move detail screen entirely new in Gen 3 altogether?

Nonasuomi (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

The move detail screen technically dates back to Stadium (or Generation II if not counting it, though there it was more simple than in the Stadium games). Marked +-+-+ (talk) 12:29, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

In the Advances in gameplay section, would someone change the code "Contest category" to "Contest condition"? Tiddlywinks (talk) 00:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"Contemporaneous"

Is this really valid? The originals and remakes seem to take place in different timelines, with certain elements contradicting each other (Abandoned Ship vs. Sea Mauville, for example). RSE and FRLG may be contemporaneous, but FRLG aren't in the same Generation as RGBY, and in a different timeline. TeridaxXD001 (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Advances in gameplay

Why is there a list of "major alterations" and a different list of "alterations"? Why can't they just be one list? Also, "Generation III enhanced the Pokémon world the most yet" seems opinionated. sumwun (talk) 00:30, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

I agree. As for the opinionated statement, I actually don't like the whole sentence for a few other reasons, such as that it's not something like cause "incompatible", and effect "most/many changes"; or that I wouldn't say a generation can change the Pokémon world; or that the incompatible part is in the general intro already, and otherwise largely unrelated to the list. Nescientist (talk) 09:28, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Undoing of edits about third-party tools

Three places in the article mentioned the impossibility of transferring Pokemon from Generation II to Generation III. I added "without third-party tools", or something to that effect, to each of them. Somebody (should I point fingers?) undid these edits, saying that they were "not notable". These are two reasons why I think they're notable.

Debating purposes: The article implies that it's impossible no matter what. This isn't true. This would be like removing all mention of the ability bulletproof from the page about aura sphere, because Pokemon with bulletproof are so rare that the fact that aura sphere can't hit bulletproof Pokemon is "not notable". I know that a wiki can't hope to contain everything, but we can't leave out so much that the information can be interpreted falsely.

Practicality purposes: What if a fanboy/fangirl was heartbroken because he/she couldn't share his/her latest experiences with his/her beloved Typhosion from Crystal (and happened to have a lot of pocket money)? He/she goes to Bulbapedia, the best Pokemon wiki on the internet, in hopes of finding something, anything, that would allow him/her to transfer this Typhlosion to a newer game. But, Bulbapedia only tells him/her what he/she's already heard, and he/she gives up his/her search in tears. I know this might not happen exactly as described, but I know a lot of people who are still playing Generation I/II games. I could have saved a lot of sorrow in just three minutes of editing, and somebody came and undid those three minutes, saying that the added information was "not notable".

sumwun (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

This wiki does not give people hacking advice. The only methods that can transfer between Generations II and III are hacking and illegal. Litwick96 13:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, no need to point anywhere. Had you wanted to only ask Tiddlywinks why exactly he undid these edits (writing "not notable/needed" in the summary by the way), you should've asked him personally. Since you have opted for this public talk page, I'll assume you're interested in reasons not to include "without thrid-party tools" in general. So, I'll try to provide that and make clear why I support him undoing. (This may not be his reasoning, though.)

The main problem with qualifying facts with "without cheating" etc. is that, if you did that here, you would have to do it virtually everywhere. Where would you draw the line? With cheating, it's possible for Charizard to learn Razor Leaf, or for Wattson to be Rustboro's Gym leader. Especially if you assume lots of money at hand. Right now, we're basically "assuming" everyone just plays the game as it is, which should be the most reasonable thing. So, this may not be so much related to debating or practicality purposes. Hope this helps! Nescientist (talk) 14:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Only what the games allow is notable. The games do not allow transfer. And the games/official sources do not provide any "third-party tools".

Hacking can do anything. Plain common sense should already tell anyone, Hey! I could probably hack the game to make it do what I want! It quite simply goes without saying. We're not here to advise people on how to fulfill their every dream. (Hell, we don't have any cheat codes for any of the games! It's absolutely not our job.) We're here primarily to document the Pokemon games and media encyclopedically. Tiddlywinks (talk) 15:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think I get it now.

By the way, why do we still have a page about action replay? sumwun (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

It's notable generally. Tiddlywinks (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, it would have helped more to say, "We don't provide information about third parties." or something specific like that instead of just saying, "not notable/needed".- unsigned comment from sumwun (talk • contribs)