Unpopular opinions

[Yung Dramps]

I feel like my hypothetical about pretending the Emerald Frontier didn't exist was misinterpreted somewhat. What I was trying to get at is that Emerald's postgame basically lives or dies based on one's enjoyment of the Battle Frontier, and while between 7 facilities there's likely to be at least one the average player will have a good time with as Suspicious Derivative said it's highly unlikely that one will love all the facilities or even 4 to 5 just as much as one another. And as hard as it may be to believe to some there is a big contingent of people, some of whom I have spoken to personally, who hate the Emerald Battle Frontier and think it's an overrated gimmick, they just don't say it because they'd get dog-piled on by fans of feature, some more rational than others. For this big contingent, what else does Emerald have to offer that ORAS can't provide aside from the Gym Leader rematches?

I'm also not a fan of the idea of older games that are just as good if not better than newer games being an indictment against the current state of any given franchise. Mario has had plenty of great games in the past decade from smash hits like Super Mario Odyssey to relatively overlooked gems like 3D Land and World, yet people still hold the likes of the Super Mario World titles and Mario 64 in extremely high regard. Super Smash Bros. Melee has had legendary enduring popularity even in the age of Ultimate capturing the hearts of the fans. Older games can have their own set of nuances that make them classics or even cult hits that transcend their time period, but that doesn't inherently diminish the achievements of their new-generation brethren, so what makes Pokemon different aside from this nebulous concept of "scope", a concept that can be argued is still present in newer games in different ways like XY's massive regional Pokedex or SWSH's Wild Area, ideas that show a desire to expand the world even if flawed in execution?

As this discussion has continued I think I've realized something, a new hot take of my own even: I often really don't care for postgame content in Pokemon games. When I played Platinum a month ago and got to the Battle Frontier, I played like 5 matches of the Factory and haven't picked it up since, and despite going up to bat for ORAS' postgame I really haven't done a whole lot on my most recent save file beyond the Delta Episode, and before anyone says anything I sincerely doubt that would change if I happened to be playing Emerald instead, especially considering how Platinum's Frontier failed to capture me. Why exactly this is I'm not quite sure, but I think in general I appreciate extra side content that meshes with and is available during the course of the meat of the gameplay rather than content I have to go out of my to seek out after the main portion is already done that doesn't continue the story or themes of the entry in question, call it laziness but that's how I am. It's why I appreciate ORAS' direct/indirect mechanics changes and character touch-ups as well as the new bits of lore courtesy of locations like Sea Mauville much more than anything Emerald does, or why I think USUM are vastly inferior games to the original Sun and Moon that in return for a bit of extra postgame fluff absolutely gut the main story both in terms of boss design and writing. Devs can put as many extra attractions for the player to dive into after the credits roll as they want, but if I don't want to play through the many hours required to gain access to that content then it may as well not be there.

 

[Worldie]

In addition to the difficulty it might produce for soft-resetting, I actually think a higher difficulty in catching is a better place to build a 1 mon boss out of than throwing on stat boosts. Because status effects are balanced around a 6v6 or 4v4 scenario, it's pretty trivial to empty any one health bar. What makes catching distinct is that actually letting your opponent's hp reach 0 is a failure condition. Personally I find "you can absolutely use Destiny Bond here, but it's counterproductive to do so" a lot more palatable than "haha, no," so I think of it as better to have a format that encourages keeping the target standing while you work to reach a different victory condition. It means you don't have to do anything arbitrary to make a single mon capable of being challenging against attrition, while also giving them enough turns to make a dent in the player's team. Contrast UNecrozma, who has inflated stats so it has the potential to end the fight in 6 turns, or Raid bosses, who go out of their way to make hitting them repeatedly the only option.

Yes, but no.

Remember the very reason for which they introduced IV Caps, then Nature Mints, and potentially for the removal of Hidden Power was to remove the necessity to gen via hacks Softreset legendaryes.

You could make a point for shinys, but cover legendaries are generally shiny locked, while for the others you can just reset istantly at start of the battle as you istantly see if the pokemon is Shiny or not.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

I'm also not a fan of the idea of older games that are just as good if not better than newer games being an indictment against the current state of any given franchise. Mario has had plenty of great games in the past decade from smash hits like Super Mario Odyssey to relatively overlooked gems like 3D Land and World, yet people still hold the likes of the Super Mario World titles and Mario 64 in extremely high regard.

That is not equivalent to the argument I made.

Mario 64 was groundbreaking and has a ton of fans, but you can look at the Mario franchise and see that the 3D games built upon it and had their own ambitious ideas. The result is that while some of them aren't as iconic as others, they all have their own unique charm and are always regarded as very good games.

This isn't happening with Pokémon. Regardless of one's feelings about each game (I particularly think XY and ORAS are not as bad as people say.) the general perception, even outside the fanbase is that the games' quality is decreasing and coasting on the amazing core mechanics.

I agree with that btw. Most of the time, you don't see the same ambition as Emerald and the DS games in the later entries of the series.
In fact, comparing the progression of the Pokémon franchise to Mario actually makes it look a lot worse. Let me explain by going back to a previous point.

"Mario 64 was groundbreaking and has a ton of fans, but you can look at the Mario franchise and see that the 3D games built upon it and had their own ambitious ideas."

This is something that simply does not happen in Pokémon. I'm not talking about clearly regional stuff like Z-Moves and Dynamax. I'm talking about gameplay features that are present for all of one game and then immediately abandoned for absolutely no reason in the other.

Here's an example: HGSS's Running Shoes' toggle. Can anyone ever fathom why a QoL change like that got rolled back like that? And this isn't something about just the 3DS games, this affected the DS games too, BW1 and BW2 also don't have this feature.

Instead of building on these little things, Game Freak constantly adds great features and remove them on the next game. It happens every single game. Instead of reusing the code and just building upon it, Game Freak immediately jumps to the next gimmick.

If people are looking at the older games, comparing them to the new ones, and bashing the new ones, you need to understand why. Sure, some people may just be blinded by nostalgia, but in some cases that means that something went wrong, and yes, this applies to Pokémon.

 

[Worldie]

Instead of building on these little things, Game Freak constantly adds great features and remove them on the next game. It happens every single game. Instead of reusing the code and just building upon it, Game Freak immediately jumps to the next gimmick.

Little fact about this: in one of the interviews happened during the whole Dexit shitstorm, the GameFreak's representative (I *think* it was Masuda but don't quote me on this) said that they purposely put and remove features constantly because they are genuinely convinced that it "creates surprise for the players".

They genuinely think it's a good idea to constantly put in and remove features in order to keep players interested in buying the next title to see what features it'll have.

Now, it's obviously another typical case of Winner Curse combined with absolutely 0 interest in the non-japanese feedback, since the games *still sell absurly well* so they have no reason to think it doesnt work.

(an in hindsight, if you go outside of this board or highly competitive environments, you'd notice noone really cares of the features that are gone, bar the occasional nostalgia for Megas)

TLDR: GameFreaks is not receiving any negative feedback on this behaviour due to a combination of high sales and lack of interest in anything that isnt written in japan, so they are convinced it's a good plan.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

it was Masuda

I honestly think the most tone-deaf thing I've seen in those interviews was: "We think players should be able to make their own difficulties."

Removes Exp. All Share toggle.

Troll Freak. Freek'n You since the good old Gen 1.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

Little fact about this: in one of the interviews happened during the whole Dexit shitstorm, the GameFreak's representative (I *think* it was Masuda but don't quote me on this) said that they purposely put and remove features constantly because they are genuinely convinced that it "creates surprise for the players".

They genuinely think it's a good idea to constantly put in and remove features in order to keep players interested in buying the next title to see what features it'll have.

Trying to come up with new and exciting things to add to the game? There's value in that.
Trimming fat and culling things that don't work? Also valuable.

Spicing up the game by removing features? Now that's a cosmic brain play.

 

[Worldie]

Trying to come up with new and exciting things to add to the game? There's value in that.
Trimming fat and culling things that don't work? Also valuable.

Spicing up the game by removing features? Now that's a cosmic brain play.

Sadly, as long as we (me included) keep buying their games like the sheeps we are, they're never going to learn :\

(then again, I am on the line of "heh I don't care much as long as I have fun and end up playing the game enough to justify its price", so i'm kind of a bad example :P)

 

[Suspicious Derivative]

Ok, sure. What did we ignore?

Maybe ignore is the wrong word, but I was thinking about the part where you said the following:

The Delta Episode is nice and all, but that's just what it is. An episode. A story event. You will not spend hundreds of hours polishing your team, battling, and even exploring in the Delta Episode.
Not to say it's bad, it's actually nice that they added a story expansion to ORAS, but when you're done with it, what are you going to do? Go to the horribly misplaced random French facility? Be satisfied with just the E4 rematches instead of the multiple trainer rematches of Emerald? (I'll admit that said rematches ain't all that until you get to their top teams.)

Which can be interpreted as ignoring everything else there is in OR/AS apart from the three things you listed. So that leaves out all the things I listed in my previous post. There's also the Battle Institute which I forgot about.

No, no. This is a reference to Masuda's infamous quote about not adding the Frontier because he thinks that it's not worth the effort since kids will just think it's too hard and go back to mobile games. (Or something along these lines, I don't remember it verbatim.)

It wasn't a shot at you.

I see, I misunderstood that. I had forgotten about him saying that. Here's the quote in question according to Bulbapedia (translated from Italian, and it seems like the original link no longer works): "Put simply, the Battle Frontier wasn't included because only a tiny number of players would have appreciated and used this game feature. Players get fed up more easily than they did in the past and aren't attracted by these 'demanding' challenges."

And I hate to say it, but I think he is right. Why bother spending a lot of time on a feature only a small number of players will play and appreciate? While this is a bit disappointing for those of us who like the Frontier, the majority of the players are probably not going to care (or some like me are fine either way), so I can understand how he is thinking here. Not everyone cares for or is interested in the post-game and Battle Facilities, as Yung Dramps has shown above. It is sad for those of us who are, but we aren't really the target audience anymore, and I guess it is questionable if we ever were.

And here's why we're having this discussion, to begin with.

Doesn't it strike you as odd that we're seriously discussing whether Emerald a GBA game has better content than a 3DS Remake, 3 Pokémon generations later?

If we just look at it logically, ORAS should be straight up making Emerald obsolete. Just getting to replay through Hoenn in 3D (and ORAS looks very good on that front) is a massive advantage (although I think that Emerald still holds up as a good looking game.), the modern mechanics like the Physical/Special Split are even more of an advantage and yet, we're comparing the post-games and preferring ORAS over Emerald is actually an unpopular opinion.

Don't get me wrong, ORAS is not a bad game, and doesn't have a bad post-game per se, but the difference is immediately obvious. The scale and ambition.

You need to remember that people were already expecting the Frontier in ORAS because it not only was one of the things that defined Hoenn, but also because it's natural for a series to progress, not regress.

Ever since XY, the scale and ambition of the post-games jumped off a cliff. They literally went the extra mile to give a shoutout to the Frontier just to rub it in for crying out loud.

XY was understandable since GF clearly bit off more than they could chew, so the post-game being a step-down was collateral damage. Not ORAS though. They went the extra mile to do everything but one of the most requested post-game activities for these games. And I still stand by my stance that the Frontier beats everything ORAS had to offer 1v1.

QoL stuff is nice and much appreciated, but it's not enough, or we'd consider SnS to have one of the best post-games of all time, so no, Secret Bases being upgraded to be easier to use ain't it. Again, appreciated, but not original. It's the refining of a Gen 3 idea. And a lot of ORAS's post-game can be defined by that. The one standout and original idea is the Delta Episode, and it's a great addition, but again, it doesn't compare to the Frontier.

Now this is a good point. With this, I understand your view much better. As said before, I agree that the games have been going downhill in terms of post-game and content since Gen 6, and in overall gameplay too starting from Gen 7. So if that is your basis for prefering Emerald and the Frontier over OR/AS, then I understand that. I still disagree with you, but I understand how you feel much better now. So thanks for the explanation.

 

[Worldie]

I agree that the games have been going downhill in terms of post-game

I believe the issue here is that the playerbase for that content is pretty lacking.

There are a few pockets of dedicated players, but in general, casual players barely if ever touch them, and competitive players maybe steamroll the early parts of them for BPs for the items, and then also abandon them.

From development standpoind, investing money and resources in a feature that has proved over the years to be niche/barely utilized/sometimes even hated is by all means, bad.

You have to always remember, the "main" playerbase of those games is kids and supercasual young adults. The type of players who will finish the main story, potentially the postgame episode, and... be done, to never touch the game again.
And, the other somewhat decent chunk of playerbase is competitive VGC players, who also barely have any interest in PvE facilities outside of the required Battle Points.

You can clearly see the reflections of this in the Battle Tower of Gen 8: the mode is both super user friendly, relatively easy, spammable, and also completely unnecessary since the various seasonal rewards as well as rotating raids throw battle items and battle points at you like its raining.

Considering it's GameFreaks we're talking about, a company that has proven multiple times to not be able to produce complete or polished games, it is pretty obvious that the first thing they'd take development time off is the least used one, which is postgame content.

And generation 8 made clear that GameFreaks want to encourage people to play online (both for the PvE events, aka raids, and the PvP ones), due to the *insane* amount of quality of life changes made to breeding & optimizing pokemon, further removing the need of any kind of side-activity.

Obviously, it saddens me as well (as I am a facility player and I enjoy them), but as a coder myself, I cannot but justify the decision of GF to over time drop depth in postgame activities, since honestly, barely anyone cares for them.

 

[Yung Dramps]

If people are looking at the older games, comparing them to the new ones, and bashing the new ones, you need to understand why. Sure, some people may just be blinded by nostalgia, but in some cases that means that something went wrong, and yes, this applies to Pokémon.

Hmm... I see. I guess it's time to show you a few things.

This is a complaint about FireRed and LeafGreen. Note the date of posting: September 15, 2003. Also note some of the complaints listed: Less features than previous entries, lack of ambition/not listening to fans, mindless consumer fanbase that'll buy it all anyway... Doesn't this all sound eerily familiar?

But wait, here's another one that's a little more brief and to the point:

This was a comment about HeartGold and SoulSilver.

And don't you go thinking these were isolated incidents, either!

I know people who have been in this fandom long enough to have similar experiences to this fellow here, for even older titles too! Did you know that people back in ye olden days were complaining about the Battle Frontier in Emerald, and the physical/special split in DP?

And you know what this all means? It means that alllll the current complaints about Sun and Moon, about Sword and Shield, about Let's Go WILL. NOT. LAST. It'll all come to be an utterly worthless waste of time in the long run because a new generation of fans is gonna grow up and praise how those titles were oh so ambitious and oh so amazing while that blasted Generation 11 is such a dreadful, cashgrabby slog with no passion or love put into it, and then those fans will rise up and we rinse and repeat until either we or this franchise literally DIE, whichever comes first. It has already started with X and Y, by the way!

The Pokemon fanbase has some really cool, funny and smart people with some big ideas, fun stories and grade-a analyses; some of them have been actively participating in recent discussions on this very thread! shoutouts to Suspicious Derivative and Hematite y'all are the goats But as a collective entity, the Pokemon fanbase is far, far too cyclical and simply too small of a sample size relative to the tens of millions who buy Pokemon games to ever be a reliable source of criticism, just look at the overwhelming disparity between the community's current feelings on SWSH and its sales/critical acclaim! The only way to judge a Pokemon game unless these circumstances happen to change is to play it for one's self, or to consult a couple of trusted individuals/reviewers on the matter.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

"Put simply, the Battle Frontier wasn't included because only a tiny number of players would have appreciated and used this game feature. Players get fed up more easily than they did in the past and aren't attracted by these 'demanding' challenges."

And I hate to say it, but I think he is right. Why bother spending a lot of time on a feature only a small number of players will play and appreciate?

Besides me obviously disagreeing with this disrespectful notion that kids these days are softer, dumber, and less prone to seeking challenges than past generation kids, there's also the other prominent GF problem.

The nostalgia pandering. They keep pandering to all those people that played during Gen 1, (Shoutouts to KANTOOOOO) and they keep making the games dumber.

The AI keeps getting worse, and the challenging stuff that would be interesting to older players that don't need the freaking undefeated champion of Galar congratulating them for using type matchups to their advantage on the Champion battle, GF WHAT THE F***!?

Honestly, GF needs to stop looking at older fans as morons that just like KANTOOOOO and actually bring back Challenge Mode so these older fans can actually play the game without feeling they're getting treated like kids.

Now this is a good point. With this, I understand your view much better. As said before, I agree that the games have been going downhill in terms of post-game and content since Gen 6, and in overall gameplay too starting from Gen 7. So if that is your basis for prefering Emerald and the Frontier over OR/AS, then I understand that. I still disagree with you, but I understand how you feel much better now. So thanks for the explanation.

No problem, glad we could understand one another in a civilized manner. That was fun.

And you know what this all means? It means that alllll the current complaints about Sun and Moon, about Sword and Shield, about Let's Go WILL. NOT. LAST. It'll all come to be an utterly worthless waste of time in the long run because a new generation of fans is gonna grow up and praise how those titles were oh so ambitious and oh so amazing while that blasted Generation 11 is such a dreadful, cashgrabby slog with no passion or love put into it, and then those fans will rise up and we rinse and repeat until either we or this franchise literally DIE, whichever comes first.

Well, would you look at that. I can't reply to your post right now. Please remind me in around 5 years how well this post will age.

I feel like I should warn you though, I'm very consistent with my opinions. You can be certain that I'll be saying the same stuff about these topics in 10 years if you ask me again.

Also, when talking about a game, sales matter to companies, not to the players. They're the ones getting money. Fifa is, has been and will be garbage that barely evolves between its countless yearly iterations but you can be absolutely sure that it will sell like hotcakes. If that's your standard for a quality franchise, that's on you.

 

[Worldie]

Well, would you look at that. I can't reply to your post right now. Please remind me in around 5 years how well this post will age.

I feel like I should warn you though, I'm very consistent with my opinions. You can be certain that I'll be saying the same stuff about these topics in 10 years if you ask me again.

But you see, that is the issue that Yung Dramps and me are pointing at: Yes, your opinion, as much as the others here, will not change.
In 5 years, you will still think that <insert pokemon entry> is hot trash.

Unfortunate, there's still going to be the entire new generation of players thinking it's glorious, and those outnumber the "vocal minority" of the online fanbase by a ridicolous amount of zeros.

Thus as you said... sales matters, and sales have only got *higher* with Sword and Shield, who are looking forward to potentially break all Pokemon sales record given enough time.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Thus as you said... sales matters, and sales have only got *higher* with Sword and Shield, who are looking forward to potentially break all Pokemon sales record given enough time.

Also, when talking about a game, sales matter to companies, not to the players. They're the ones getting money. Fifa is, has been and will be garbage that barely evolves between its countless yearly iterations but you can be absolutely sure that it will sell like hotcakes. If that's your standard for a quality franchise, that's on you.

Please don't misquote me.

I'd be down to overlook SnS's flaws if a briefcase full of cash popped in front of me like one of those NPCs because of that terrible draw distance. Sadly, that's not the case, I don't work for IGN.

 

[Blue glass]

Even if you think Fifa games are trash, many people disagree with you because they keep buying it and the same goes for Pokémon. There are kids right now that will praise SwSh as the pinnacle of Poké games 10 years in the future.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

Even if you think Fifa games are trash, many people disagree with you because they keep buying it and the same goes for Pokémon. There are kids right now that will praise SwSh as the pinnacle of Poké games 10 years in the future.

But that was never the point of the discussion, to begin with.

We were talking about Emerald and ORAS's post-games and suddenly "sales matter". What does that have to do with any argument any of us raised? It's just a silly anvil people throw to end a discussion.

Pokémon can sell a Sonic 06 mod with Pokémon replacing Sonic characters, merchandise it as such, and it'll sell millions on brand awareness alone.

Of course SnS sold like hotcakes, the core gameplay, and the brand awareness is still there. It was never going to flop, to begin with. We could just rate it one of the greatest games of the decade based on sales by simply knowing it exists. In fact, we can say that about the next games right now.

Here's an unpopular opinion. I play games, not the freaking stock market. Don't bring sales while we're talking about game design.

 

[Ironmage]

There's a term in the tabletop fandom that I think this is getting at: edition war. Everybody thinks of the one niche thing that would make the game so much better for them, and with that many different directions, actual development is bound to go against a good chunk of them. And so, once again, there ends up being three groups of people: those who are satisfied, those who are not, and those who pop in to say that their turning point was years ago.

Obviously, edition wars are fought with the worst insults you can find on the internet, it's human nature to escalate a conflict if you believe you have an advantage. But, at least to me, the how isn't interesting, the why is. After all, tabletop is a hobby about patterns, yet there's always a set of people willing to make a stand against progress in their wrong direction. From my perspective, it's because the old guard has nothing to lose. Accepting the changes doesn't bring them anything if said changes mean they no longer enjoy the game. Either they let the changes happen and have the mainstream drift away from them, or they put up a fight and most likely lose, having the mainstream drift away from them.

So there's nearly no cost of failure. But is there a chance of success? Is it possible to be strong after official support is cut? It's certainly rare. But it's not impossible. I would know, my main tabletop system was a third party variant of D&D 3rd edition (3.5 technically) that stood for 10 years before it had to face its own edition war. Outside of tabletop, look at the Star Wars Extended Universe or Smash Bros Melee. The cycle isn't immutable, and for those who enjoy what's left behind, there's an incentive to break it. And with failure as the default, trying isn't going to make their situation worse.

So if you're saying to stop fighting because it won't do anything, you're not going to get anywhere. Chances are, I also believe it won't. I'm not fighting because I expect to succeed, I'm fighting because I value what I would get if it does do anything more than being on the 'winning side.' And, let's be honest, I'm a bit of a rules lawyer. If my particular battlefield happens to be civil, there's a good chance I enjoy the time I spend fighting on it.

 

[Celever]

I think this conversation is nonsense. On one side you have people launching valid criticisms at games, and on the other side you have people discrediting those criticisms because more people like those games than don't.

We're the minority of the fanbase who go back and play all the games that we missed out on originally, which means we have the scope to understand what is missing from newer games that used to have presence in the series. And that makes us more informed to launch criticism at the new games which are on a series decline. It's not an argument to say that the people who have never played a game with the Battle Frontier in it didn't miss it in ORAS, because they don't know that it ever existed in the first place so it's not that they don't miss it for a reason, they don't miss it due to ignorance.

The key thing about this is that it works both ways. One of the things that Gen VII and VIII are credited for is all of the quality of life improvements. And that's true, but those mean very little to someone whose first game was Sun, or Shield, because that's the norm for them. Those quality of life improvements only matter to veterans, because the value of them is that things are better now than they used to be. Everything that was improved was serviceable before those improvements were made, so we wouldn't be criticising the games for them not having been made.

Pokémon is always going to be lucrative because it's in a consumer cycle. Since the first games were released, a significant percentage of children worldwide have played Pokémon and, even if they stop playing at some point, when they have children of their own Pokémon is one of the first games they'll buy for them thanks to their own childhood memories. Rinse and repeat, for eternity or until the franchise ends, which isn't happening due to a decline in sales and would have to happen for some other reason. And in all reality, most parents buy video games for their kids not to play with them, but to keep them entertained on their own so the parents can have a bit of respite, so those parents won't look at SwSh and go "huh, this isn't as good as Crystal", because they'll never look at the gameplay for long enough to realise. But that doesn't mean that SwSh are as good as Crystal.

And you know what this all means? It means that alllll the current complaints about Sun and Moon, about Sword and Shield, about Let's Go WILL. NOT. LAST. It'll all come to be an utterly worthless waste of time in the long run because a new generation of fans is gonna grow up and praise how those titles were oh so ambitious and oh so amazing while that blasted Generation 11 is such a dreadful, cashgrabby slog with no passion or love put into it, and then those fans will rise up and we rinse and repeat until either we or this franchise literally DIE, whichever comes first. It has already started with X and Y, by the way!

I think you drew the wrong conclusion from those sources. Your first source, made in 2003, detailed criticisms that are still rife 17 years later. People still complain about having three games per entry, at different levels depending on how much they apply to different games. Needing two games to complete the dex mattered more back in Gen III because in order to trade you needed a link cable -- you couldn't do it online. So many people had to buy both games to complete the dex, if they didn't know someone with the other version. So while that criticism has died a little for valid reasons (though it's still seen as a cash grab for collectors), the third game criticism rose to prevalence again in Gen VII because SM were literally unfinished and then USUM finished SM while simultaneously removing half of the things about SM that were actually good. Just because a criticism being levelled against a game doesn't apply to every other game in the series and therefore isn't talked about so much, that doesn't mean it's not a valid criticism when it does apply.

The long HGSS post refers to completely different topics than modern discussion around the newer games. The man was talking about people complaining about grass tiles! Those criticisms were never going to stand the test of time because they were so minor to begin with, not to mention cosmetic. The criticisms launched at the new games are about much more important and tangible things -- the lack of content either postgame or in regards to exploration, how long it takes to get into the gameplay loop which makes the series good, or boss battles being at a lower difficulty than the average regular trainer in older entries in the series, removing the same sense of achievement as older games had. These aren't tiny criticisms, these are things that affect the player experience of the games, and make newer entries objectively worse than the older ones, even if for one reason or another some people subjectively like those entries. I liked SwSh quite a lot because they were released at a time where I was extremely busy and could only play in short bursts, so the lack of content actively catered to my needs because I could play for an hour and make significant progress that made me feel accomplished. But that's subjective, and objectively the games having less content makes them worse games.

The Pokemon fanbase has some really cool, funny and smart people with some big ideas, fun stories and grade-a analyses; some of them have been actively participating in recent discussions on this very thread! shoutouts to Suspicious Derivative and Hematite y'all are the goats But as a collective entity, the Pokemon fanbase is far, far too cyclical and simply too small of a sample size relative to the tens of millions who buy Pokemon games to ever be a reliable source of criticism, just look at the overwhelming disparity between the community's current feelings on SWSH and its sales/critical acclaim! The only way to judge a Pokemon game unless these circumstances happen to change is to play it for one's self, or to consult a couple of trusted individuals/reviewers on the matter.

You actually pointed out the weakness of your argument with the very last clause here: "or to consult a couple of trusted individuals/reviewers on the matter". That's us. The only thing that a reviewer has that we don't is a license fee for making their posts while we do it for free, and if anything that makes the quality of those reviews lesser because the authors have an agenda -- which is to make themselves money. In terms of expertise, all they've got going for them is that they've played every game in the series too, assuming it's from an actually good site and not IGN where 7.8/10 Too Much Water gets past the editors.

tl;dr In short, the people talking about sales appear to not understand the difference between subjective and objective. People can like bad things, doesn't mean those things are suddenly good. The majority of people thought capital punishment was awesome, and now only dictatorships and a few states in America still advocate for it. And that will of the public changed because the technocrats who know what they're talking about levelled criticism at it, and then public opinion later followed. Things aren't good because they're popular; thing are popular because they're good. And then you have fringe cases where things that are bad are popular anyway.

 

[Yung Dramps]

The long HGSS post refers to completely different topics than modern discussion around the newer games. The man was talking about people complaining about grass tiles! Those criticisms were never going to stand the test of time because they were so minor to begin with, not to mention cosmetic. The criticisms launched at the new games are about much more important and tangible things -- the lack of content either postgame or in regards to exploration, how long it takes to get into the gameplay loop which makes the series good, or boss battles being at a lower difficulty than the average regular trainer in older entries in the series, removing the same sense of achievement as older games had. These aren't tiny criticisms, these are things that affect the player experience of the games, and make newer entries objectively worse than the older ones, even if for one reason or another some people subjectively like those entries. I liked SwSh quite a lot because they were released at a time where I was extremely busy and could only play in short bursts, so the lack of content actively catered to my needs because I could play for an hour and make significant progress that made me feel accomplished. But that's subjective, and objectively the games having less content makes them worse games.

I'm sorry but I frankly have 0 confidence in this assertion that the 3D games are so deeply flawed that they are somehow immune to the cycle (at least I'm guessing that this is what this paragraph was meant to imply, that the criticisms for newer titles are much more significant than back in the olden days so they will endure for longer). Who knows, maybe 5 years down the road games like SM and SWSH will still be majorly disliked, but again I sincerely doubt it. As I said earlier: It's already begun for X and Y. More and more in just the past few months around various Pokemon fan communities I've already being seeing "XY weren't that bad" becoming an increasingly popular sentiment as well as much more praise for stuff like their huge regional dex and Mega Evolutions. And my opinion has not changed on them at all, I still think they are profoundly mediocre, bottom 3 titles. And yet we've reached a stage where people are no longer afraid to confess XY as among their favorite generations of all time.

I also don't buy the whole idea of "objective criticism". Frankly I don't think such a thing can even really exist, I'm firmly in the camp that criticism is inherently subjective. "Less content" doesn't matter if the content that is there is something that tons of people are having a blast with in spite of whatever flaws it has (The Wild Area, Max Raid Battles) and "more content" doesn't matter if a lot of that is filler garbage that nobody likes (Trainer Hill, Mirage Island, Artisan Cave), quality over quantity know what I'm saying? I really like BW2 as much as many other people. I also like ORAS equally as much and love Sun and Moon even more. Is my opinion objectively incorrect? If so that feels a bit... discouraging. I dislike XY and hate USUM, but I would never dare to deem anyone who likes them as "objectively" incorrect.

 

[Blue glass]

Here's an unpopular opinion. I play games, not the freaking stock market. Don't bring sales while we're talking about game design.

I'm sorry, I'm not discussing about emerald and ORAS post games. When I bring sales in the discussion is because what you want in game design isn't what everybody is looking for and that is okay. They aren't blabbering idiots whose opinions should be disregarded.

tl;dr In short, the people talking about sales appear to not understand the difference between subjective and objective. People can like bad things, doesn't mean those things are suddenly good. The majority of people thought capital punishment was awesome, and now only dictatorships and a few states in America still advocate for it. And that will of the public changed because the technocrats who know what they're talking about levelled criticism at it, and then public opinion later followed. Things aren't good because they're popular; thing are popular because they're good. And then you have fringe cases where things that are bad are popular anyway.

Exactly, people can like bad games but for them they are good, it's completely subjective and there isn't a objective answer, it is just different people looking for different things in the games that they play. It's ridiculous to compare personal opinions about games with the changing public perception about dictatorships and democracies.

 

[DrPumpkinz]

This recent talk about the differences between RSE and ORAS, specifically the reward for Pokedex completion, made me realize something: the advent of easy online trading has weakened some of the pillars on which Pokemon was originally founded.

If anyone remembers that school essay I shared a few weeks back, I noted that the Pokemon franchise is built atop three pillars:

1: To be the best like no one ever was. The story of every mainline game revolves around becoming the champion of the Pokemon League.​

2: To catch 'em all. You're also tasked with collecting as many Pokemon species as possible.​

3: Player-to-player interaction. Tajiri's original inspirations for creating Pokemon were imagining a bug crawling across a link cable, and being frustrated that Sugimori couldn't lend him a spare Mad Cap in Dragon Quest II.​

These pillars combine with each other in interesting ways.

1+2: As you collect new Pokemon, you naturally amass a wealth of options to deal with whatever the game throws at you. On the flip side, if you ever hit a challenge that seems unwinnable, it's often a good idea to search the nearby grass and NPCs for a new Pokemon that will help you.​

1+3: PvP is awesome.​

2+3: You can't get every Pokemon in a single game, so you'll need the help of other players (assuming you don't buy both copies of a pair).​

While 1+2 is unrelated to the internet, and 1+3 is greatly improved, I feel like 2+3, the thing Pokemon was founded on in the first place, the thing that made Pokemon such a wildly popular game, has been weakened. Completing the Pokedex used to be an adventure. Once you've caught all the Pokemon you could in your own game, you had to go out and find people to trade with to get those last few beasts. Scour the school for people who both had them and were willing to trade with you. Maybe play alongside a friend and swap with them. But now? Sure, that's still technically an option, but it's far easier to head to a message board, as for a trade, and wait. Or just go to town on the Wonder Trade roulette.

That's not to say that I necessarily think internet trading should be cut. It's definitely a boon to 1+3, because it makes it easier to craft a competitive team. And since Pokemon is no longer an outrageously popular fad, I imagine the quest to find real-world peers to trade with is far more difficult now. But in order to make up for this loss, Game Freak should be making efforts to encourage player interaction in other ways, which they haven't been doing a great job at to my admittedly secondhand knowledge.

The key system in B2W2 was an attempt, but the only thing it did somewhat well was Regi exclusivity. Raid battles seem like a great idea, as the AI trainers are inadequate and it's much easier to coordinate in-person or with close online friends, but the AI trainers might be too inadequate, and Hematite already went over the system's poor execution.

Despite my talk, I don't have many clear ideas of what could be done to remedy this. One of the reasons I think this opinion is somewhat unpopular is because it seems like a lot of people prefer not having to rely heavily on other people. Many people don't have easy access to peers to cooperate with, while other people may not feel comfortable working with others (for example, me in person), and it would suck to say to those people "too bad, find some irl people or get lost). So it would need to be something that could be done online, but also something that encourages/requires coordination. Raid battles done right could work, as could maybe a dungeon filled with co-op puzzles.


Now onto some happier takes.

The AI keeps getting worse, and the challenging stuff that would be interesting to older players that don't need the freaking undefeated champion of Galar congratulating them for using type matchups to their advantage on the Champion battle, GF WHAT THE F***!?

That feels less like a tutorial and more just characterization for Leon. It probably could have been handled better (probably chose a habit that doesn't come across as a tutorial), but it feel like it's meant to show how Hop picks up mannerisms from Leon. Even Hop being overly chatty in battle is apparently intentional characterization, as according to TvTropes, Raihan makes a comment at some point that Hop spent their entire fight yapping. While I couldn't find such a comment on Bulbapedia (so take it with a grain of salt) I did find a different Raihan quote that led to a different unpopular opinion:

You’re really something else, kid. You’ve made it all the way here! I guess that’s why the Champion himself endorsed you, yeah?

Leon’s my rival—and he chose you. So I’ve got to first prove I’m better than you if I’m to beat him! I’ve reworked my whole team, and now we’re all geared up for one-on-one battles!

You might be thinking that you beat me once already... But if you think I’m the same Raihan you faced during the Gym Challenge, you’ll soon regret it!

The reason Raihan's team in the Champion Cup is such a hot mess is because Raihan isn't good at singles. I'm reminded of the time Joey taught Wolfe Glick SMOU, and Wolfe was surprised that Toxapex was good. Many competitive players focus so much on a particular format that the strategies of other formats seem alien, and Raihan is just like them. This of course doesn't explain how Raihan can consistently make it to finals in the Champion Cup, or why he's recognized as the second best trainer in Galar after Leon. It could just be that he's so much more talented than everyone else that he can still beat them despite being garbage at singles team building. I just think it's funny and fitting that the gym leader who specializes in double battles and who admits to having reworked his team for single battles has such an incohesive singles team.

 

[Celever]

I'm sorry but I frankly have 0 confidence in this assertion that the 3D games are so deeply flawed that they are somehow immune to the cycle (at least I'm guessing that this is what this paragraph was meant to imply, that the criticisms for newer titles are much more significant than back in the olden days so they will endure for longer). Who knows, maybe 5 years down the road games like SM and SWSH will still be majorly disliked, but again I sincerely doubt it. As I said earlier: It's already begun for X and Y. More and more in just the past few months around various Pokemon fan communities I've already being seeing "XY weren't that bad" becoming an increasingly popular sentiment as well as much more praise for stuff like their huge regional dex and Mega Evolutions. And my opinion has not changed on them at all, I still think they are profoundly mediocre, bottom 3 titles. And yet we've reached a stage where people are no longer afraid to confess XY as among their favorite generations of all time.

I also don't buy the whole idea of "objective criticism". Frankly I don't think such a thing can even really exist, I'm firmly in the camp that criticism is inherently subjective. "Less content" doesn't matter if the content that is there is something that tons of people are having a blast with in spite of whatever flaws it has (The Wild Area, Max Raid Battles) and "more content" doesn't matter if a lot of that is filler garbage that nobody likes (Trainer Hill, Mirage Island, Artisan Cave), quality over quantity know what I'm saying? I really like BW2 as much as many other people. I also like ORAS equally as much and love Sun and Moon even more. Is my opinion objectively incorrect? If so that feels a bit... discouraging. I dislike XY and hate USUM, but I would never dare to deem anyone who likes them as "objectively" incorrect.

I'm afraid this just confirms that you don't understand the difference between objective and subjective, but I don't want to get into a silly argument about semantics, so I'll just explain it briefly. Your opinion cannot be objectively incorrect, because opinions are inherently subjective. However, you can subjectively like an objectively inferior game, and having that view does not make the game any better as a game in itself. I had a friend who came into school sometimes with a packed lunch of plain pasta with ketchup on top of it because neither of his parents could cook to save their lives. He liked that pasta because it's what he had grown up with, which is a subjective view, but one day I invited him to my house and cooked him my own pasta. Once he tasted it, his subjective view changed to match the objective truth that plain pasta with ketchup is worse than the pasta I cook. Sometimes objectivity works better when making comparisons, such as in comparing the fact that the 3DS era of games is weaker than the gameboy and DS eras. There are actual parameters and qualities to all of these eras that can be compared and contrasted, and the 3DS era becomes the weakest by the sum of these objective measures.

The difference also depends on evidence. Is there evidence that means that a statement is true? Assuming the evidence is valid, that makes it objective. We consider it objectively true that the sky is blue, despite the fact that some colourblind people and most animals see it as a different colour. Their personal experience does not detract from the fact that the sky is blue.

Which leads onto the point that whether the 3DS games are a part of the cycle you've formulated or not doesn't matter, because it doesn't make them good games.

Firstly and a little tangentially, this cycle of yours is actually flawed to begin with. According to your theory, people should have disliked Pokémon Gold when it was released in 1999, and then decided that they like it ~5 years later in 2004. And then they should've disliked Crystal when it was released in 2000, and then decided they like it ~5 years later in 2005. That would give us a year where people liked Gold/Silver but didn't like Crystal, which clearly never happened because Crystal is an objectively superior game to Gold/Silver. And besides that example, if people hated Red/Blue for their first 5 years this site wouldn't exist because the franchise would've flopped!

But back to the point, popularity has no place in a conversation about game design anyway. There are loads of factors involved in popularity that are independent of the game itself. For instance, the Wii U had lots of objectively great games that were never popular because the Wii U itself wasn't popular. Donkey Kong: Tropical Freeze is one of the best platformers frankly ever made, but if popularity were the only measure of quality then it would have been considered mediocre at best until it was rereleased on the Switch and sold like hotcakes. The 3DS era of Pokémon can become as popular as they like, whether it be thanks to nostalgia or due to a further series decline that means that the kids growing up with that era never get a better experience out of Pokémon than those games, and it will not detract from the fact that they are worse games than every single one that came before them in terms of their measurable player experience. What you're saying simply isn't relevant.

Exactly, people can like bad games but for them they are good, it's completely subjective and there isn't a objective answer, it is just different people looking for different things in the games that they play. It's ridiculous to compare personal opinions about games with the changing public perception about dictatorships and democracies.

No, that's not what those words mean haha. What that first sentence means is "people can think bad games are good", and you immediately see why what you're saying isn't a defence of bad games. And it's literally comparing public opinion about x to public opinion about y, the point being based on analysing the trends of public opinion. Yung Dramps' entire argument is about using public opinion to justify mediocrity.

 

[Volt-Ikazuchi]

That feels less like a tutorial and more just characterization for Leon. It probably could have been handled better (probably chose a habit that doesn't come across as a tutorial), but it feel like it's meant to show how Hop picks up mannerisms from Leon.

Yeah, it was a call back to Hop's first battle, but like, of all things to say in the Champion battle he chose this?

Leon could've said something more related to his competitive drive or something that didn't make both of them look like fools.

Nice idea, poor execution.

 

[Hematite]

I'm afraid this just confirms that you don't understand the difference between objective and subjective, but I don't want to get into a silly argument about semantics, so I'll just explain it briefly. Your opinion cannot be objectively incorrect, because opinions are inherently subjective. However, you can subjectively like an objectively inferior game, and having that view does not make the game any better as a game in itself. I had a friend who came into school sometimes with a packed lunch of plain pasta with ketchup on top of it because neither of his parents could cook to save their lives. He liked that pasta because it's what he had grown up with, which is a subjective view, but one day I invited him to my house and cooked him my own pasta. Once he tasted it, his subjective view changed to match the objective truth that plain pasta with ketchup is worse than the pasta I cook. Sometimes objectivity works better when making comparisons, such as in comparing the fact that the 3DS era of games is weaker than the gameboy and DS eras. There are actual parameters and qualities to all of these eras that can be compared and contrasted, and the 3DS era becomes the weakest by the sum of these objective measures.

This... is completely incorrect.
"Better" and "worse" ARE subjective measures. Your friend's exposure to the taste of your pasta changed their subjective opinion, and that opinion became that your pasta is better than plain pasta with ketchup. That's an opinion that both of you now share - that doesn't suddenly make it a fact.
Provided that it's true (it probably is! I'm not here to insult your cooking), it's an objective statement that your friend likes your pasta more, because your friend is one person and no one else can have an opinion on the way your friend feels towards your pasta. But your friend liking your pasta does not make it objectively true that it's better - it only indicates that your pasta is more to their subjective tastes.
I really wish you'd picked a less personal example because this is totally going to sound like I'm insulting your cooking. I swear I believe you that I, too, would enjoy your pasta more than plain pasta with ketchup. I don't even like ketchup! It's a low bar. But it's still subjective.

Edit to expand: there CAN be objective evidence on something like this - someone could say that Gold, Silver and Crystal are inferior to HeartGold and SoulSilver based on the objective facts that HeartGold and SoulSilver contain more Pokémon, that they were released on a more technologically advanced console or that there are more Trainers to battle, for example. The opinion they draw from this is subjective - someone else might dislike HGSS because they enjoy the minimalist, retro qualities of Gold and Silver, or because the nostalgia they feel from Gold and Silver is lost because of the technical advancements. It's an objective fact that the first Pokémon in your party follows you in HeartGold and SoulSilver - it's nothing more than a relatively popular opinion that this is strictly a good thing, and it's just as valid to hold any other opinion on this, and neither opinion is objective even though both of them are based on objective facts. Subjectively, HGSS might be better or worse games - the only objective part is that this is a feature that they have.
My point is that you can have a subjective opinion based on objective evidence, but you can't call your opinion objective just because of that. And if it's an objective truth that Black and White have animated battle sprites and Ruby and Sapphire do not, that's not the same as Black and White being objectively better games as Ruby and Sapphire - because to someone who finds the animations distracting or poorly executed, the very real and objective fact that they exist might just as easily make Black and White subjectively worse.

I'm working on an actual post about my opinion on ORAS, but I just wanted to say this part because it's short and the thread is kind of fast-paced right now, haha.

Edit 2: okay, I'm not sure if I'll get around to posting on ORAS any time soon (especially since the thread has already largely moved past it, and I'm not sure I really want), but I just wanted to make a followup on this for the sake of posterity and didn't think it was worth its own post, so:

Hide

I'm not sure how well my post here was understood based on the way certain people responded, so lemme try and make this easier on you guys!
Short and sweet version:

"Subjective" means that something is decided by the experiencer. You know the saying "beauty is in the eye of the beholder?" It's that. Beauty, enjoyment, quality... these things are "subjective" because different people can hold different views on them.
"Objective" refers to something that is simply true and does not depend on anyone's personal experience. It can't be my opinion that a standard calendar year is 400 days. It just isn't! No matter how strongly I may believe it, a standard calendar year as of this post is not 400 days. Maybe I could make some argument that a year should be 400 days - and who knows? maybe I have a really, really compelling argument that will convince all of you don't worry I don't this was a random example, but I can't make any argument at all that the calendar year has been 400 days all along, because that's simply not true.
Meanwhile, it is very, VERY easy to disagree on which game is worse than another one.
You can tell because like half of the people in this thread disagree on which game is worse than another one.
Hopefully that makes sense now! There's no debate to be had - that's literally all there is to it, haha.

Disclaimers:

- Some people here seem to think that saying subjective opinions are valid is the same thing as endorsing every subjective opinion ever, which is kinda funny because the whole point I was trying to make is that people don't necessarily agree with each other on everything.
These people should consider differentiating between factually right and wrong (read: correct and incorrect or true and false) and morally right and wrong (read: good and bad). It will help you a whole lot.
It's quite obvious that one can make a judgment of someone else's character based on their views. If your subjective opinions are hateful to someone else, or if your subjective opinions are in favor of something that's harmful to someone else, of course I'm going to argue that that's morally wrong, attempt to convince you of that and change your mind, and likely develop a negative opinion of you as a person if you stand by it.
That's just a completely different thing from saying "your opinion is false," which is something that can't be meaningfully evaluated in any case where an "opinion" is warranted at all.

- It also seems like some other people here are taking the fact that I tried to clarify these simple definitions and mistaking it for proof that I personally believe that "subjective" means bad or invalid or irrelevant, while "objective" means good and only objective truths have a place in discussion, and basically that I was raising the point to dismiss the subjective arguments that were actually being made as worthless. It was even suggested that I was saying people should not attempt to justify their subjective claims with factual evidence in the interest of promoting healthy discussion.
This is a little bit of a confusing interpretation of my post, because a good 90% of my posts on this site are me stating my subjective opinions and justifying them to the best of my ability with factual evidence. I think it should be obvious to anyone who knows me that I do not consider that meaningless or irrelevant, and I certainly hope no one else feels that way.
It's also a little bit of a confusing interpretation of my post because I'm pretty sure I outright said that wasn't the case. Why would I be calling subjective opinions insubstantial and useless in the same post that I try to explain why they're valid?
To clarify, I'm quite certain that no one is disputing that objective evidence is the ideal foundation for an argument supporting a subjective claim. The problem I was actually addressing is mistaking the claim itself for an objective fact as soon as you come up with a factual justification for it - every worthwhile opinion has a basis in reality and reasoning, but that doesn't mean it ever transcends being an opinion.
There simply can't be an objective truth to how much fun one game is compared to another... and that's why I people can have this discussion at all: because there is no single right answer, people can disagree, people can use facts and evidence to be persuasive, people can continue to share their own perspectives, and one person's opinion is not and never will be "the be-all, end-all" or "case closed." I trust it should be easy to see why this doesn't quite work with respect to something objective - it would be much harder to have a conversation like this with people sharing their different points of view on the number of days in a standard calendar year.
Calling the games "objectively bad" and outright dismissing people who "subjectively like an objectively inferior game" is exactly the kind of thing that shuts down healthy discussion, and that's why I was responding to it. And hey, I kinda wasn't going to say anything about it at first anyway, but people were literally already debating subjective vs objective and simply getting it wrong, so I was hoping my attempt at intervening would be acceptable? I'm sorry that it seems I did such a bad job of it.

I hope it's easier now to see why I stand against this claim of objectivity and what I meant by my original post. I'm still a bit perplexed by the way you interpreted it initially, but hopefully this will clear it up!

 

[doipy hooves]

As I said earlier: It's already begun for X and Y. More and more in just the past few months around various Pokemon fan communities I've already being seeing "XY weren't that bad" becoming an increasingly popular sentiment as well as much more praise for stuff like their huge regional dex and Mega Evolutions. And my opinion has not changed on them at all, I still think they are profoundly mediocre, bottom 3 titles. And yet we've reached a stage where people are no longer afraid to confess XY as among their favorite generations of all time.

I believe this is less of being afraid and more of a new majority of internet newcomers sharing their opinions. People who grew up with a gen will have nostalgia for it, which will show when they're discussing and making memes.

 

[Ironmage]

In addition looking at popular games and determining whether they are good, we can also look at unpopular games and determine whether they are bad. At least in my experience, there are quite a few good games that have sufficiently small playerbases that they haven't had attention from developers in years (e.g. everybody that I know who has played Custom Robo has enjoyed it, but the last entry was only a moderate seller in 2007 why would you ever release another casual RPG with strong multiplayer in the same week as Diamond and Pearl?!). As such, I can't really ascribe a strong correlation, much less a causation, between enjoyability and copies sold.