My unpopular opinions:
1. X and Y are actually really fun, definitely among the most replayable games in the series. Huge region with an even bigger Pokedex, pretty visuals, and not too many cutscenes to mash through. Yes, the story is bad, but I think Pokemon fans put too much emphasis on story in a series where the story is, more often than not, a formality, a bonus at best. I'd like a better story, but especially on a repeat playthrough I don't think the story adds much. Also, the limited number of new Pokemon in gen 6 wasn't a problem because they went for quality over quantity. Most of the gen 6 mons are, at least, acceptable in design, but a lot of them, like Tyrantrum, Pyroar, and Trevenant, are absolutely knocking it out of the park. Look at gen 5: It has the most new Pokemon of any gen, including several excellent designs, but the stereotypical Pokemon fan dislikes gen 5 mons because there are a lot of duds too. I'd rather have fewer Pokemon that are better designed than more Pokemon that I don't care about.
2. The hate towards Charizard and gen 1 pandering in general is a little overblown. Yes, Charizard is consistently used, but so are a lot of other Pokemon. I don't see this much vitriol aimed at Eevee, which has even less reason to be as oversaturated as it is. I understand and agree with a lot of the criticisms towards Zard and Kanto itself, but I think at this point it's gotten a bit old. I first saw "Charizard is overrated" memes when I was like, 12, I think we get the point by now. Also, I'm not sure if "genwunners" are actually that common as real people. I see them mentioned a lot as a strawman, but I've never personally met any.
3. On the note about Charizard, I think it getting two Mega Evolutions was actually sick as fuck. They shouldn't have cut one of the Megas, they should've given Venusaur and Blastoise two Megas too. The flexibility and strategizing afforded by two Mega options is really cool for both in-game and competitive use, and I wish they did more with the concept. Imagine a Mega Blastoise X that's Water/Steel and is built to be a physical tank with Regenerator, or a Mega Venusaur X that relives the glory days of being a sun sweeper with Ninetales. Heck, go beyond starters, why not have two different Mega Medichams, one based on physical moves, one based on special moves? So much potential in this idea.
4. The universal Exp Share was a good addition to the game. The biggest problem with older Pokemon games is often the grind, Johto being especially problematic. Having your entire party get experience does wonders to fix it, while also making the possibility of using more than 6 Pokemon and swapping members around an actually realistic option compared to how it was before. The problem with this idea was removing the ability to disable it. People want hard modes for Pokemon games, so having such an easy way to implement a "hard" mode, and then removing it, is strange to me. This part isn't an unpopular opinion, I just thought it'd be best to include it for the sake of nuance and clarity.
5. Digimon actually does a lot of things better than Pokemon, and I think Pokemon fans are too quick to bash it without giving it an earnest, good faith try. And yes, that means actually learning the mechanics and trying to play it like it was made to be played, not trying to force it to play like Pokemon. Digimon Story: Cyber Sleuth in particular is better than the vast majority of Pokemon games, imo. In particular I think the nonlinear evolution system where Digimon can degenerate to a lower form to become stronger upon Digivolving again, and how a single Digimon has multiple options for what they Digivolve to, and from, is awesome. Imagine having a Charizard that knows Extreme Speed because it started as a Dratini, or being unsatisfied with your starter options and eventually turning your starter into a Pokemon you DO like. That rules.
6. "Advanced" Pokemon mechanics like EVs and IVs are actually very simple. The reason more casual players think they're "too complicated" for them is because the games don't do a good job of explaining them at all. The most you get is stuff like "if you level up your Pokemon with just Rare Candies they'll be weaker than if they leveled up by battling", which is true, but they don't explain WHY, or that once you max out EVs you can use Rare Candies all you like. I think the community has done enough work documenting this stuff that it's easy to learn it all by doing basic research, but as frustrated as I get with people dismissing something as "too hard" or "too complicated" without even trying, when "I don't actually care" is a likely more honest response, it's more on the fault of the games for not explaining core mechanics like that.
7. Most of the PokeTubers I've watched are carbon copies of each other with different voices and aesthetics but otherwise the exact same style of content. It's gotten more varied over the years, now challenge runs are in vogue (or were) but even the challenge runners are generally interchangeable. If you're going to dedicate your channel to Pokemon games specifically, which isn't necessarily a good idea with how samey Pokemon games tend to be (I guess that's another unpopular opinion), you have to inject your own personal style beyond aesthetics to really stand out from the hoard. Craft a sense of humor and a presentation style that's unique to you, an aesthetic that's more deep than "Pokemon Trainer oc with my favorite Pokemon as the mascot", and find something interesting to talk about, and you have a winning formula on your hands. In fact, if you're going to specialize in Pokemon, you still need to play other games like Digimon or other turn-based RPGs to have a more fleshed out and nuanced perspective. As of now? I could take or leave most content creators who specialize in Pokemon. I much prefer people like Big Yellow and Pikasprey who play a variety of games, since their Pokemon videos tend to be more distinct as a result, rather than copying a formula that's been long established.
