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.
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.
The Pokemon cycle I discussed pretty much purely applies to the hardcore Pokemon fandom that mainly manifests on online circles, if it applied IRL, as you said, Pokemon wouldn't be anywhere near as big as it currently is. It also generally applies more to entire generations and all the games in it with the exception of old-gen remakes, so in your example people's changing opinions would relate to all of Gen 2, not just one of GS or Crystal. Hematite's already explained why your feelings on "objectivity" are contradictory and do not have the place in critique you suggest they do, and that's for freaking remakes for old titles. Forget trying to compare completely different regions with their own places, unique attractions and other content. Black and White 2 and Sun and Moon have a similar sized Pokedex for instance, so how does one evaluate which is """objectively""" superior? They also have their own unique minigames and other side features, so how do you compare something like Poke Pelago which has no real parallel in BW2 and vice versa? How do you figure out which has an """objectively""" superior story when they have different characters, conflicts and themes? When it comes to long-running franchises like Pokemon everyone has their own priorities and preferences, and some games hit those personal tally marks much better than others. HGSS and BW2 have all kinds of neat stuff, but if that stuff is not what a particular person is looking for which is present in XY or SWSH or at least doesn't provide as much in those areas for that person, then there's nothing else to it, it simply can't be """objectively""" better or worse.
As for your little public opinion thing... I dunno what to tell ya on that one man. None of what you replied with is the point: The point is that invoking capital punishment in an argument about a children's videogame series can come off as being a bit in poor taste.
Oh that's absolutely a part of it! However, there is also a bit of what I described: Going back to this specific example, people who loved XY from the get-go will feel a lot more confident talking about why and how much they love it as looking back on those games with fondness becomes an increasingly popular sentiment.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.