Unpopular opinions

[nitchenkightmares]

When I look back on the RBY era the thing that stands out to me about it is the undercurrent of greasy urban sleaziness which permeates not just the games but often their tie-in material. The deluge of Poison types, the game corner and accompanying Gambler trainer class, Team Rocket's presence as a worldly mafia rather than over-the-top themed genocide enjoyers and the above-average quotient of sexual humor (heated electric tale of pikachu moment). Hell, the catching tutorial is given by the town drunk!

This honestly is a big part of the reason why I have come around to the "RBY is at least more memorable than FRLG" position. It's certainly a unique vibe that future Kanto material has largely watered down and was being phased out in favor of the brighter more colorful baseline tone we're familiar with as early as Gold & Silver. I would love to see a Legends Kanto that tries to tap back into this, although I'm unsure how doable this would be under modern brand guidelines

I'm glad you pointed that out. It felt like RBY wasn't afraid to make pokemon not a complete utopia unlike the other 8 Regions. It's not anything crazy, but it has a subtle edge to its worldbuilding. Things like the biker gang in the cycling road, who literally threaten to steal your shit illustrate that feeling.
Also, it kinda reminds me of Earthbound and Onett, the town being filled with a gang run by mobsters led by Frank.
Makes more sense when you know that most of the RBY staff also worked on Earthbound.

 

[Sonikku A]

It does get me how they kinda fucked up the world building with the sheer lack of side quests or even mention from NPCs about development. Gen 2 tried with the bug/fishing contests and noting the older apricorn balls, but the former being tied to a literal 24/7 clock hurts it, and there are no other side quests regardless

The 1996 Pokedex book GF made notes certain Poison mons being the result of urban pollution, but in the games...none are even in populated urban areas like stated LMAO*. And only Grimer's dex entry notes its origin

*GSC and LG actually makes fishing/surfing for Grimer possible in Celadon which is interesting. Unfortunately the area looks colorful and clean by that point especially in remakes, so....

 

[QuentinQuonce]

It does get me how they kinda fucked up the world building with the sheer lack of side quests or even mention from NPCs about development. Gen 2 tried with the bug/fishing contests and noting the older apricorn balls, but the former being tied to a literal 24/7 clock hurts it, and there are no other side quests regardless

Idk it depends how you define sidequests, Gen II has a lot of minor errands/tasks like delivering that guy's Spearow with Mail, healing the sick Miltank, and even stuff like showing various NPCs the correct Pokemon/item for a reward. There's even extreeeemely minor stuff like getting Buena's phone number (how many people ever managed that by accident, I wonder).

And pretty much all the later games have something of this - even just stuff like the newspaper in Solaceon where you have to catch a certain species, or catching all the Unown, or bringing a Pokemon from the opposite version to that guy in Opelucid, or walking that woman's Mienfoo in Humilau City. The Alola games were absolutely full of them - off the top of my head there's that quest where you have to defeat all the Eevee users, for instance. Made that region feel extremely alive to me.

That said I always wish there were more. There's a scrapped sidequest in GSC about someone's daughter being lost in the Burned Tower which would have been very cool to implement. Guessing it was deemed too similar to the missing granddaughter quest on the SS Aqua (though it would have been really funny if it was the same little girl both times and her grandfather just couldn't keep hold of her no matter how hard he tried).

I also always found it odd that the Charcoal man in Azalea says "stay and train with us!" and then... does nothing. Like you can't ever battle him or anything.

The 1996 Pokedex book GF made notes certain Poison mons being the result of urban pollution, but in the games...none are even in populated urban areas like stated LMAO*. And only Grimer's dex entry notes its origin

*GSC and LG actually makes fishing/surfing for Grimer possible in Celadon which is interesting. Unfortunately the area looks colorful and clean by that point especially in remakes, so....

Yeah this was always really odd to me. Celadon is so bright and pretty and uplifting, all the more incongruous for being next door to blank bare brutalist-looking Saffron City. It literally even has a Grass-type gym leader! You'd have thought she'd be hard at work ensuring the city was clean and free of pollution (in a modern game she absolutely would be)

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Idk it depends how you define sidequests, Gen II has a lot of minor errands/tasks like delivering that guy's Spearow with Mail, healing the sick Miltank, and even stuff like showing various NPCs the correct Pokemon/item for a reward. There's even extreeeemely minor stuff like getting Buena's phone number (how many people ever managed that by accident, I wonder).

And pretty much all the later games have something of this - even just stuff like the newspaper in Solaceon where you have to catch a certain species, or catching all the Unown, or bringing a Pokemon from the opposite version to that guy in Opelucid, or walking that woman's Mienfoo in Humilau City. The Alola games were absolutely full of them - off the top of my head there's that quest where you have to defeat all the Eevee users, for instance. Made that region feel extremely alive to me.

That said I always wish there were more. There's a scrapped sidequest in GSC about someone's daughter being lost in the Burned Tower which would have been very cool to implement. Guessing it was deemed too similar to the missing granddaughter quest on the SS Aqua (though it would have been really funny if it was the same little girl both times and her grandfather just couldn't keep hold of her no matter how hard he tried).

I also always found it odd that the Charcoal man in Azalea says "stay and train with us!" and then... does nothing. Like you can't ever battle him or anything.



Yeah this was always really odd to me. Celadon is so bright and pretty and uplifting, all the more incongruous for being next door to blank bare brutalist-looking Saffron City. It literally even has a Grass-type gym leader! You'd have thought she'd be hard at work ensuring the city was clean and free of pollution (in a modern game she absolutely would be)

This is the main reason that I don't really buy the whole "Urban vs Nature" stuff people say about Kanto. It looks wayyyyy too clean for that, especially in the remakes.

With that said, there IS an edge to it with all the crime going on. Team Rocket took over Silph Co. in broad daylight and nobody batted an eye.

Johto is a really nice region, it just needed a bit more polish on gameplay. Especially on mon availability. It has a lot of the finer details that really makes a region pop, but it needed to be more distinct from Kanto in some ways, even as a direct sequel.

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

This is the main reason that I don't really buy the whole "Urban vs Nature" stuff people say about Kanto. It looks wayyyyy too clean for that, especially in the remakes.

I mean, RGBY were developed in the early 90s, had a 1MB rom and 32KB of SRAM for the safe data and similar. The games had to simplify a lot of the graphical elements in terms of the pixel art by way of standardising on building types, tile placement, and more to fit onto the cartridge.

It’s why, looking back at FRLG, the lack of a more defined look to Kanto beyond “Gen 3 graphics for a Gen 1 game”, these games maybe don’t hit as hard as they should do. LGPE meanwhile did do a rather effective remake of Pokemon Yellow with completely updated graphics, but even that doesn’t bring Kanto “alive”.

Like criticise SW/SH and SV all we like for some aspects, but the former had great locations with spectacular graphical design that made each of the areas really come alive (Tanglewood anyone?) and the latter, though clearly needed the more powerful hardware (and I am specifically talking about SV as played on a Switch 2 now) suddenly does make some of the areas - the lake, the snow biome and Area Zero - look spectacularly different to one another.

I don’t think we can be too critical about RGBY for their lack of aesthetic differences given the limitations they worked under, but we should probably be more critical about followups for not making Kanto feel overall that different.

GSC did, in my view, a good job of making Johto feel varied on a very small overall possible tileset. So it can be done, it’s just that RGBY were first…

 

[Bakugames]

I mean yes rgby was a very limited game but even some really small sprites of grime and trash or pollution would have sold the effect. Or being able to encounter the pokemon on the city itself or the outskirts.

in general while kanto Says its more roughed up than the following games, its design still feels pretty utopic and nice. the main difference really was the npcs, but the actual design of the region felt like the cities were close to nature and connected to each other

 

[QuentinQuonce]

I mean yes rgby was a very limited game but even some really small sprites of grime and trash or pollution would have sold the effect. Or being able to encounter the pokemon on the city itself or the outskirts.

in general while kanto Says its more roughed up than the following games, its design still feels pretty utopic and nice. the main difference really was the npcs, but the actual design of the region felt like the cities were close to nature and connected to each other

Literally no-one is meaner than Kantonian NPCs, which is quite a feat when we have a whole region based on France.

Like, you just know Kanto has a reputation the world over as "the region with the unfriendliest locals"

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

I mean yes rgby was a very limited game but even some really small sprites of grime and trash or pollution would have sold the effect. Or being able to encounter the pokemon on the city itself or the outskirts.

in general while kanto Says its more roughed up than the following games, its design still feels pretty utopic and nice. the main difference really was the npcs, but the actual design of the region felt like the cities were close to nature and connected to each other

It’s an interesting one this because I don’t think there was ever a clear aim to design Kanto as dystopian or particularly city-scaped, or even polluted: I think the poison type exists primarily to highlight what can happen to our nature if we don’t look after it.

On a sort of a linked note, think about Lapras. Its early dex entries talk about extinction. By the publication of the Gen 7 games, our attitudes globally to things like whaling have changed substantially and such creatures like some species of whales have seen their numbers rise up back to the extent that this is reflected in the Pokedex entries.

Pokemon as a videogame series has always been limited by hardware and software constraints, been influenced by what is happening around it in history, and by the game’s own development and change in approach, together with that of Nintendo, TOC and Game Freak.

Re the biker gangs - those NPCs always struck me as just being indicative of something which is a globally recognised phenomenon and also was quite prevalent in the 90s pop culture, of which Pokemon takes in ample inspiration (including and especially the Kaiju and JRPG motifs).

 

[LPBvgc]

Any Pokémon game that has been released for 5 years or longer should not be considered Modern Pokémon.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Any Pokémon game that has been released for 5 years or longer should not be considered Modern Pokémon.

Yeah, no, that would just make people feel old for no reason. Gen 8 is definitely modern, quit playin

I'd say it's more about design choices, there's a very clear break in design philosophies across the board between say, Gens 1-2, 4, and 8.

The definition of modern pokémon needs some work, but it inevitably falls into "Modern = Bad, baby mode games" issue, so people can't get on the same page about it.

 

[Heatranator]

Any Pokémon game that has been released for 5 years or longer should not be considered Modern Pokémon.

Make it 10 years, and that I think would be fair. That means gen 7 is barely modern pokemon (released in 2016), while XY/ORAS is old pokemon.

Doesn't make it any easier for me and makes me feel old though.

 

[Yung Dramps]

RBY-HGSS: Classic Era
BW-SWSH: ??? Era (still don't got a name)
Legends Arceus onward: Open Era

in terms of dividing the franchise up this seems like the most sensible way to do so in my eyes

 

[Bakugames]

BW-SWSH: ??? Era (still don't got a name)

I'd call it the experimental era. as much as people chide these games, they all have more in common that instead of bringing changes to the battle system, they try to experiment with the story, regions, gimmicks etc.

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

RBY-HGSS: Classic Era
BW-SWSH: ??? Era (still don't got a name)
Legends Arceus onward: Open Era

in terms of dividing the franchise up this seems like the most sensible way to do so in my eyes

Gonna throw on my historian’s hat for this one, but maybe think about the tech involved as the main factor instead:

Era 1 - Classic Era - 1996-2001
Era 2 - Advance Era - 2002-2005
Era 3 - Dual Screen Era - 2006-2012
Era 4 - The 3D Era - 2013-2018
Era 5 - Home Console Era - 2018-2024
Era 6 - Modern Era - 2025 onwards

Notes:
Eras are largely based on the tech involved, as Pokemon Gens since Gen 3 have been in multiple on the same device.
The longest Era to date is Era 3 due to the nature of the Gen 4 and Gen 5 games development for the DS.
Era 4 and 5 overlap in 2018 due to the release of LGPE in November 2018.
I have deliberately made the “modern era” start from the Switch 2 starting with PLZA - as Switch 2 will bring some changes to gameplay and development.
This is different from “generations” which with the clear exception of Melmetal and Meltan, start and end from the moment a game is released where a new Pokemon can be caught within the boundaries of set games or games on the same or overlapping systems.

 

[Frostbiyt]

Gonna throw on my historian’s hat for this one, but maybe think about the tech involved as the main factor instead:

Era 1 - Classic Era - 1996-2001
Era 2 - Advance Era - 2002-2005
Era 3 - Dual Screen Era - 2006-2012
Era 4 - The 3D Era - 2013-2018
Era 5 - Home Console Era - 2018-2024
Era 6 - Modern Era - 2025 onwards

Notes:
Eras are largely based on the tech involved, as Pokemon Gens since Gen 3 have been in multiple on the same device.
The longest Era to date is Era 3 due to the nature of the Gen 4 and Gen 5 games development for the DS.
Era 4 and 5 overlap in 2018 due to the release of LGPE in November 2018.
I have deliberately made the “modern era” start from the Switch 2 starting with PLZA - as Switch 2 will bring some changes to gameplay and development.
This is different from “generations” which with the clear exception of Melmetal and Meltan, start and end from the moment a game is released where a new Pokemon can be caught within the boundaries of set games or games on the same or overlapping systems.

For the early eras, I'd argue for
Era 1: RBY - GSC
Era 2: RSE - B2W2
Era 3+: XY on

These breaks are largely along aesthetic lines, though I think there are other aspects tying them together. While the graphical jump from GB to GBC is large, in my opinion the graphics in those games are bad enough that it detracts from the playing experience. RSE are the first games that don't feel difficult to play due to their visuals. From then onward, each new game felt like an incremental update visually, until we jump to 3D with XY.

After that I'd probably say XY - USUM, then SS - Present, which I think lines up with your eras.

 

[Bakugames]

if we want to divide the pokemon games in eras, i think we need to decide the priority of characteristics. to me, visuals are the least important because they all just feel like normal franchise improvements following other game trends and not something that heavily affected pokemon - with the main exception being how designs made in 3d follow different rules and expectations to designs that exist in sprite form.

I think that gameplay is much more important. I think we can fuse the 4 first gens into their own era because the most important changes here were largely on the battle system: from items and the division of special to natures and abilities to the entire phy special split, each game plays completely different from the last one. by gen 5, the changes in the battle system were much more minute: a new ability slot, some type chart changes, usual mechanic tinkering, and team preview which is only relevant in comp. youre not going to play gen 5 that much different from how you played gen 4 really. and sure, the next gens brought in gimmicks and a new type, but they once again dont change how the gameplay works fundamentally.

what you see with bw to swsh thats in common is that every game there is trying to bring in something new to the franchise, and are more likely to break conventions - such as bw2 sequels and their stories, xy megas sumo retooling the evil team concept and regional forms/ubs, swsh doing away with the elite 4, testing open area and dmax. it also started the idea of gamefreak trying out new countries beyond japan.

sv right now imo floats in the placeholder open world era. i would not put it within the previous era, but we simply need more games to make sure: despite it being open world, it is completely possible that sv has more in common with the previous era than the potential era gen 9 and 10 brings

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

This sort of confirms to me why I prefer the tech based eras: here’s enough gameplay differences between gens 1/2 and 3, and then 3 to 4/5 to split them up (double battles, physical/special split) that they could stay separate.

I don’t buy the graphical argument personally: graphics are a product of the hardware which is always of its time.

It’s an interesting discussion though, I like that we all have different takes on it.

 

[Frostbiyt]

I think we can fuse the 4 first gens into their own era because the most important changes here were largely on the battle system: from items and the division of special to natures and abilities to the entire phy special split, each game plays completely different from the last one. by gen 5, the changes in the battle system were much more minute: a new ability slot, some type chart changes, usual mechanic tinkering, and team preview which is only relevant in comp. youre not going to play gen 5 that much different from how you played gen 4 really.

Isn't this an argument that Gen 4 belongs in the same category as Gen 5? If very little changed between these games, they should be in the same category, right?

Further, I'd say that the physical/special split isn't actually that big of a change for regular gameplay. I know I didn't factor it in at all when I was a kid playing Gen 3 and 4. Obviously it was a big deal for the meta, but that's not really what's being discussed. And that's probably the biggest change between Gen 3 and 4, otherwise they are practically identical. Items and abilities however, are a much bigger change, but those were present by the start of Gen 3.

Very little changed mechanically or visually for that stretch of games (RSE - B2W2), so I think they belong together.

This sort of confirms to me why I prefer the tech based eras: here’s enough gameplay differences between gens 1/2 and 3, and then 3 to 4/5 to split them up (double battles, physical/special split) that they could stay separate.


I don’t buy the graphical argument personally: graphics are a product of the hardware which is always of its time.


It’s an interesting discussion though, I like that we all have different takes on it.

Double battles were introduced in Gen 3. And I think the graphics are significant when they actually inhibit you playing the game, which I find is the case in Gen 1 especially, but also Gen 2 to a degree. This is gone by Gen 3.

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

Double battles were introduced in Gen 3.

I’m aware: I didn’t say they weren’t.

And I think the graphics are significant when they actually inhibit you playing the game, which I find is the case in Gen 1 especially, but also Gen 2 to a degree. This is gone by Gen 3.

How?

Because I would argue, having spent the last year replaying a lot of Gen 1-3, that the simpler graphics and gameplay make for a straightforward and pretty clear cut experience that doesn’t hinder playing them at all.

But then I did grow up with them.

 

[Bakugames]

Isn't this an argument that Gen 4 belongs in the same category as Gen 5? If very little changed between these games, they should be in the same category, right?

No, because the eras are separated on what the team was focused on changing: gen 4 marks the end of the era where a game would come in with a new innovation for the battle system, and gen 5 starts the era where we'd keep the battles intact and instead would try to bring in new things to the franchise in other ways.

Further, I'd say that the physical/special split isn't actually that big of a change for regular gameplay. I know I didn't factor it in at all when I was a kid playing Gen 3 and 4. Obviously it was a big deal for the meta, but that's not really what's being discussed. And that's probably the biggest change between Gen 3 and 4, otherwise they are practically identical. Items and abilities however, are a much bigger change, but those were present by the start of Gen 3.

I think you're undermining things a bit here. the physical special split changed how many pokemon played and what moves were good on them even at a casual level. sure, if we're going by just "a kid wouldn't notice this" then its not a big deal, but I know plenty of folks who as kids didnt care for natures, abilities, the special split etc.

it also changed how moves could be designed and applied to pokemon and a moveset from gen 3 could have a totally different implication from a gen 4 one even if the moves are mostly the same

 

[S.A.C. Martin]

I think you're undermining things a bit here. the physical special split changed how many pokemon played and what moves were good on them even at a casual level. sure, if we're going by just "a kid wouldn't notice this" then its not a big deal, but I know plenty of folks who as kids didnt care for natures, abilities, the special split etc.

it also changed how moves could be designed and applied to pokemon and a moveset from gen 3 could have a totally different implication from a gen 4 one even if the moves are mostly the same

I totally agree, physical/special split is one of the big changes Game Freak made and it’s for that reason, IMO, that you have to split Gen 3 from Gen 4 - it changes so much of the core approach to the game and makes the special split into special attack and special defense meaningful from Gen 2.

 

[Bakugames]

I totally agree, physical/special split is one of the big changes Game Freak made and it’s for that reason, IMO, that you have to split Gen 3 from Gen 4 - it changes so much of the core approach to the game and makes the special split into special attack and special defense meaningful from Gen 2.

I think thats fair. personally i prefer keeping eras beefy, because otherwise i think the early gens would get too fractured with gen 1 and 2 being just one era, gen 3 kinda floating by itself and gen 4 only hanging with gen 5

 

[Frostbiyt]

I’m aware: I didn’t say they weren’t.



How?

Because I would argue, having spent the last year replaying a lot of Gen 1-3, that the simpler graphics and gameplay make for a straightforward and pretty clear cut experience that doesn’t hinder playing them at all.

But then I did grow up with them.

I thought you were saying that double battles and the physical special split were the main differences between gens 3 and 4.

I'm having a hard time articulating exactly what I find difficult about playing Gen 1 especially, and Gen 2 to a lesser degree. Essentially, the visual fidelity is low enough that they often struggle to be fully legible to me. It's sort of like trying to play the game while looking at it through rippling water. You can read the text, but the font is blocky enough that it feels slow, menus feel cramped, pokemon sprites are sometimes difficult to parse or just downright ugly (though charming in their own way). Now, this is made a lot better with Yellow and GSC because the color allows for more detail with the same resolution, but I don't think the issue is entirely solved until the resolution and color space upgrades that came with the GBA games. I'd be interested though, to know if people who started later than me feel towards Gen 3 how I feel towards Gen 1 and 2.

No, because the eras are separated on what the team was focused on changing: gen 4 marks the end of the era where a game would come in with a new innovation for the battle system, and gen 5 starts the era where we'd keep the battles intact and instead would try to bring in new things to the franchise in other ways.

I think it just makes more sense to group the games by features they have, not things that they change from their predecessors. The beginning of an era is typically marked by change, not by the lack of it. Though I do get your point.

I think you're undermining things a bit here. the physical special split changed how many pokemon played and what moves were good on them even at a casual level. sure, if we're going by just "a kid wouldn't notice this" then its not a big deal, but I know plenty of folks who as kids didnt care for natures, abilities, the special split etc.

I don't think the change was insignificant, I just think that it's much less significant than, say, abilities or held items. Obviously this is anecdotal, but I did care about those as a kid. And from a more objective point of view, those mechanics forced you to understand them. You can't make it through a game unaware of items or abilities. The same can't be said for the physical special split. Abilities and items also mattered outside of battle, whereas the split didn't.

Gen 3 overhauled how Pokémon stats worked to the point they decided to make them incompatible with Gen 2, introduced abilities and natures, and were a large step forward visually. Gen 4 introduced the physical special split and online play (this is a bigger deal than the split imo, but I don't think it really hits its stride til Gen 6). Gen 5 introduces hidden abilites. Gen 6 introduced Megas (marking the beginning of the battle gimmick era) and changed the graphics to 3D, by far the biggest change since Gen 2 to 3. To me it's pretty clear that the transition from gens 2 to 3 and 5 to 6 mark major shifts in the games. 3 to 4 is probably the next biggest, I just don't think that generation is different enough to be its own thing.

 

[Hugin]

Gen 1-2: The Debut. The era they're figuring everything out. The games are brand-new, there's no rules, etc. Arguably this is defined purely by vibes, but I think GSC wasn't sure what a generation was, and RSE knew exactly what one was.
Gen 3-7: 2D's Heyday. They're still experimenting(they never stop), but this is when they mostly aren't making major changes. The graphics get upgrades, there's the P/S split, they eliminate the grid, test out super-mechanics(Hidden Abilities arguably the first one of those), but I think if you give a Hoenn player USUM they'd consider it a perfectly normal pokemon game.
Gen 8+: Open World. With the introduction of the Wild Area and the ending of isometric 2D, I think this is the biggest change in the series.

Now of course you can argue all of these. I think the key for me is that Gen 3 and 8 were clearly trying things that 4 and 9 built onto, so it makes sense to group the beta versions with the polished ones.

 

[Bakugames]

is this how scientists who debate taxonomy nomenclature and grouping feel like