Topic: Only 69 new Pokemon?

@Morpheel Main legendary Pokemon never count as a legendary trio.

They are legendary, they are part of a trio so why not? There are no official rules on what can be what besides the fan made rules that are pretty worthless.

There's also the legendary birds in the game, if you wish to count them instead.

And there's also this:

Really? I mean I guess i've never looked into it but i kinda just thought Groudon, Kyogre, Rayquaza (Earth, Water, Sky) Dialga, Palkia, Giratina (Space, Time, Supernatural) Reshiram, Zekrom, Kyruem (Ying, Yang, Nothingness)

@Morpheel You can only find one legendary bird per game though.

@blatantlyheroic: gotta catch (and trade) 'em all, I guess.

http://bulbapedia.bulbagarden.net/wiki/Legendary_trio

See, Mascot Trios section.

Considering we're up to around 700 pokemon I think 69 is enough. Besides, updates are always possible.

If game freak ever does decide to have a cut off number for new pokemon, I really hope it's 1001.

They'll never cap the number of Pokemon, and I don't think they ever should. The new species are one of the main reasons people even buy the games, and I guarantee that far fewer would even bother with a title without any new Pokemon to catch.

It's like saying we should cap the number of characters in Smash Bros at Melee/Brawl levels. Or that we shouldn't add new characters and things in Mario RPGs. Matter of fact is, for most people (I'd say at least 60%), the new Pokemon species are why they buy the games. To stop this would be to let the series stagnate.