Unpopular opinions

Fair enough, and I agree, although I'd say it is more OR/AS than Emerald that made R/S obsolete for me. And my unpopular opinion is that I also find Emerald almost completely obsolete because of OR/AS as well. If it wasn't for the Battle Frontier, it would be completely obsolete, and even so, the Frontier alone is not really enough for me. I really hope saying this won't start the never-ending discussion of Emerald VS. OR/AS because I am very tired of it and I will probably not respond if anyone decides to reply to what I am saying here.

Sorry to be that guy, but I'll try to keep it brief and (hopefully) not too controversial so as not to prod the hornet's nest. I'm assuming this topic has been discussed at length here guessing by your comment, but I'll weigh in and say that I personally enjoy Emerald and ORAS equally (maybe that's an unpopular view? Who knows) for similar and differing reasons. Emerald for nostalgia reasons (which isn't hugely valid admittedly) and the battle frontier, which I think is the definitive version across the franchise. But also because I actually prefer the art direction and music in Emerald and even, somewhat more controversially, the old school battle mechanics in gen three in some instances. Overall I think Emerald just has so much more charm as a game than ORAS which keeps me coming back to it despite not being the definitive version of Hoenn. It just has a better 'vibe' to me. I don't really know how to explain it. Old school charm isn't a huge deciding factor for everyone I admit - ORAS is far more streamlined graphically and mechanically and I completely understand the appeal of this. Equally, ORAS also gives me nostalgia for Emerald (so nostalgia-ception?) and as mentioned the updated graphics and qaulity of life features are hugely welcomed.

Following on from this however, I'm not personally convinced Pokemon was best going fully 3D. Or if they did, make it a compromise between 2D and 3D (i.e. battles in 2D with a 3D overworld). Maybe not too much of an unpopular opinion (and apologies if it's been discussed to death again), but I'll explain if anyone is remotely interested.

The graphical changes in the jump to 3D do lead onto an interesting discussion that I saw highlighted in a Youtube video recently. In the 3D games character movement still functions as if the player is in a 2D world for whatever reason. And by that I mean the character movements (this is very obvious in gen 6) are extremely awkward. In gen 6, character movement is still based on a tile system that goes off of the basis that there are only four possible directions the player can move in, even when using the circle pad. Every other element of the games are in 3D however. In trying to make the games more realistic in the transition to 3D, they argubly made them less so (the term 'uncanny valley' was used to desribe this is in the video I believe). I've not played SwSh, but this is apparent in the game's cities (from what I've seen) that give the illusion of being massive and vibrant but just feel completely empty due to all of the houses looking the same (internally and externally) and there hardly being any people being in the streets or any cars even though there are roads? However, before the 3D games, using Pewter City and gen three as an example, we know that in real life houses are not bigger on the inside than the outside (please let me know if you know of such a wonder however) and that a city will not have just have four or five buildings. We ignore this because we know that what we're looking at through the screen is an abstract version of the Pokemon world that is supposed to represent a world that could be real. We let our imagination fill in the rest. I'll stop here before I go off on too much of a tangent however. But my point is, I don't necessarily think Pokemon games should go down the path of being as realistic as possible. Two games the video highlighted that successfully combine a 3D overworld with 2D elements are Octopath Traveler and Link's Awakwning, which both have art syles that could be perfect for a Pokemon game.
 
Last edited:
The graphical changes in the jump to 3D do lead onto an interesting discussion that I saw highlighted in a Youtube video recently. In the 3D games character movement still functions as if the player is in a 2D world for whatever reason. And by that I mean the character movements (this is very obvious in gen 6) are extremely awkward. In gen 6, character movement is still based on a tile system that goes off of the basis that there are only four possible directions the player can move in, even when using the circle pad. Every other element of the games are in 3D however. In trying to make the games more realistic in the transition to 3D, they argubly made them less so (the term 'uncanny valley' was used to desribe this is in the video I believe). I've not played SwSh, but this is apparent in the game's cities (from what I've seen) that give the illusion of being massive and vibrant but just feel completely empty due to all of the houses looking the same (internally and externally) and there hardly being any people being in the streets or any cars even though there are roads? However, before the 3D games, using Pewter City and gen three as an example, we know that in real life houses are not bigger on the inside than the outside (please let me know if you know of such a wonder however) and that a city will not have just have four or five buildings. We ignore this because we know that what we're looking at through the screen is an abstract version of the Pokemon world that is supposed to represent a world that could be real. We let our imagination fill in the rest. I'll stop here before I go off on too much of a tangent however. But my point is, I don't necessarily think Pokemon games should go down the path of being as realistic as possible. Two games the video highlighted that successfully combine a 3D overworld with 2D elements are Octopath Traveler and Link's Awakwning, which both have artsyles that could be perfect for a Pokemon game.

Brock.png
You watching those DistantKingdom vids too huh?

I honestly disagree with that sentiment tbh. The problem with GF's move to 3D is that they keep trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Every franchise that went 3D actually broke several conventions to do so. Compare XY to Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time and then DP, their actual first steps with Pokémon in 3D.

There were significant changes especially regarding movement, and GF did not take that step. Even in SwSh, where the protag is finally controllable with the analog stick properly, the NPC's move with the smoothness of a Ferrothorn.

The other main argument, the non-expressive Pokémon models, are a by-product of washed-out colors in their textures and atrocious idle animations.

So basically, what this boils down to is not 3D being bad, (It most surely isn't or PBR wouldn't be seen as it is right now.) but Game Freak not digging deep and doing things right.
 
View attachment 308308 You watching those DistantKingdom vids too huh?

I honestly disagree with that sentiment tbh. The problem with GF's move to 3D is that they keep trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Every franchise that went 3D actually broke several conventions to do so. Compare XY to Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time and then DP, their actual first steps with Pokémon in 3D.

There were significant changes especially regarding movement, and GF did not take that step. Even in SwSh, where the protag is finally controllable with the analog stick properly, the NPC's move with the smoothness of a Ferrothorn.

The other main argument, the non-expressive Pokémon models, are a by-product of washed-out colors in their textures and atrocious idle animations.

So basically, what this boils down to is not 3D being bad, (It most surely isn't or PBR wouldn't be seen as it is right now.) but Game Freak not digging deep and doing things right.

Haha yep, that's exactly where I got it from lol.

Hmm yeah, I definitely agree with your points about the Pokemon models and animations and I completely overlooked that fact that technically DP were the first use of 3D in Pokemon. I can also see that moving to 3D is not inherently bad and I agree that, if Game Freak actually implemented it correctly, the Pokemon games could undoubtedly look fantastic in full 3D. It's just that they've not fully realised it yet, like you say, which makes me hesitant to think that it is still the correct direction. So you're right that I shouldn't write it off so wholeheartedly just yet. I think I'm also just a sucker for the graphical styles that I mentioned above, and gen five.
 
Haha yep, that's exactly where I got it from lol.

Hmm yeah, I definitely agree with your points about the Pokemon models and animations and I completely overlooked that fact that technically DP were the first use of 3D in Pokemon. I can also see that moving to 3D is not inherently bad and I agree that, if Game Freak actually implemented it correctly, the Pokemon games could undoubtedly look fantastic in full 3D. It's just that they've not fully realised it yet, like you say, which makes me hesitant to think that it is still the correct direction. So you're right that I shouldn't write it off so wholeheartedly just yet. I think I'm also just a sucker for the graphical styles that I mentioned above, and gen five.

Yeah, basically, imo the main problem isn't that Pokemon doesn't work in 3D, the problem is that Game Freak is still inherently stuck in the same mindset as if they were developing a 2D Pokemon game. As you said, the recent 3D Pokemon games still function as the 2D games in many ways, and that's basically the thing: GF is still looking at the more recent mainline games as if they were pre-Gen 5 and approaching and designing them the same way they would those games.

Game Freak needs to change their approach to designing Pokemon games in 3D if they want to deliver truly outstanding experiences on that front. There's a lot of potential for Pokemon to have fantastic 3D experiences, but GF needs to think beyond as if it were a 2D adventure like the first five gens. Especially in terms of route design, movement, battles and camera perspective, and vice versa. The real problem is that every game is still being designed with the same mentality as Gen 3, and they're still locked in the 2D era mentality even with the transition to 3D.

They're fundamentally not really shaking things up enough and that's where the issue is: Game Freak is incredibly resistant to making major revolutionary changes to the Pokemon formula these days, and everything in the games is still built like and designed like the games from the Gen 3 era which were almost 20 years ago. Pokemon *can* work in 3D, but Game Freak needs to design map design and gameplay/navigation to better accommodate 3D world design, which they're not doing enough of.
 
Yeah, basically, imo the main problem isn't that Pokemon doesn't work in 3D, the problem is that Game Freak is still inherently stuck in the same mindset as if they were developing a 2D Pokemon game. As you said, the recent 3D Pokemon games still function as the 2D games in many ways, and that's basically the thing: GF is still looking at the more recent mainline games as if they were pre-Gen 5 and approaching and designing them the same way they would those games.

Game Freak needs to change their approach to designing Pokemon games in 3D if they want to deliver truly outstanding experiences on that front. There's a lot of potential for Pokemon to have fantastic 3D experiences, but GF needs to think beyond as if it were a 2D adventure like the first five gens. Especially in terms of route design, movement, battles and camera perspective, and vice versa. The real problem is that every game is still being designed with the same mentality as Gen 3, and they're still locked in the 2D era mentality even with the transition to 3D.

They're fundamentally not really shaking things up enough and that's where the issue is: Game Freak is incredibly resistant to making major revolutionary changes to the Pokemon formula these days, and everything in the games is still built like and designed like the games from the Gen 3 era which were almost 20 years ago. Pokemon *can* work in 3D, but Game Freak needs to design map design and gameplay/navigation to better accommodate 3D world design, which they're not doing enough of.

Not disagreeing with you at all, but what do you think are some ways a truly good 3d Pokemon game could work?
 
Not disagreeing with you at all, but what do you think are some ways a truly good 3d Pokemon game could work?

Well that's up for debate and I think a lot of people would have different ideas, but a few from me personally:

- The first, and key thing that comes to mind is changing up the way battles work. I think there's been a lot of complaining especially with Sword and Shield that the way battles exist now makes them too tedious. "X used this move" "It's super effective!", "Y used boosting move", "Y's stat rose!", and vice versa and it happening sequentially with the animations, and all that taking a grand total of 20-30 second maybe, even worse with Dynamax animations. There's a lot of unnecessary tedium in that regard. People have also been giving SwSh flack for the move animations, with are still acting as though these are 2D Pokemon game animations. There's a lot of potential for battles to be better and more dynamic with 3D Pokemon games, maybe even something more in line with how they're done in the anime, and with way better and more dynamic move animations and Pokemon movements that make battles all the more lively. Granted, making them like the anime is a bit of a stretch, but there's potential to move towards there especially in a 3D graphical space.

- The route exploration and design is another key factor to me. Routes in the recent games are still in a top-down perspective and still designed from a 2D perspective. Mainland Galar in Sword and Shield has a lot of cases of corridor syndrome with many of its routes and the routes are just too linear and don't incentivize much exploration at all. On one hand, I think the Wild Areas, especially the Isle of Armor and Crown Tundra from the DLC, show a lot of promise and are a step in the right direction, and I think if Game Freak could go that route in designing future regions and routes I think there's a lot of potential to have an incredibly compelling Pokemon region to explore in 3D! Full on camera rotation and control stick movement, and dynamic environments and perhaps some interesting designs to make the routes more lively, dynamic, and explorable. HMs are an outdated mechanic, granted, but having ways in which you can bring a Pokemon with you and have it help you explore and navigate obstacles in an environment is still also something they could work on without having to use Hidden Machines. Sword and Shield's mainland Galar has shown that they still don't really know how to design good routes without that. There are perhaps other ways in which routes could become more dynamic and explorable and actually compelling to explore that other people could think of.

- Now granted, they don't need to be totally "open-world" and non-linear, and there can still be a linear progression between cities and routes, and there needs to be given that Pokemon is an RPG. But make each route in itself dynamic and create incentive to explore and make it feel truly alive in 3D and we could have some really great regions in 3D. Unova in particular has a lot of potential if Game Freak breaks out of their current mentality.

- With routes in general, adding on to the above they should arguably be more wider and cover more area to be a dynamic place instead of straight paths like before. The later 2D games like Gens 4 and 5 managed to deliver incredibly great and dynamic routes, especially BW2, despite their inherent limitations, and have more to do in them to accommodate 3D perspective. Cities especially need a good deal of buffing up to them. Add more to them, like have more notable attractions and buildings to draw more attention to them and have compelling, explorable buildings inside of them that make the world feel more alive in that sense.

I'm sure there are a lot more ways they could deliver a stronger 3D Pokemon experience, but these are the main things that come to mind for me. There's a lot of potential, but Game Freak really needs to think outside the box and really work with that potential to improve 3D Pokemon games.
 
- The first, and key thing that comes to mind is changing up the way battles work. I think there's been a lot of complaining especially with Sword and Shield that the way battles exist now makes them too tedious. "X used this move" "It's super effective!", "Y used boosting move", "Y's stat rose!", and vice versa and it happening sequentially with the animations, and all that taking a grand total of 20-30 second maybe, even worse with Dynamax animations. There's a lot of unnecessary tedium in that regard. People have also been giving SwSh flack for the move animations, with are still acting as though these are 2D Pokemon game animations. There's a lot of potential for battles to be better and more dynamic with 3D Pokemon games, maybe even something more in line with how they're done in the anime, and with way better and more dynamic move animations and Pokemon movements that make battles all the more lively. Granted, making them like the anime is a bit of a stretch, but there's potential to move towards there especially in a 3D graphical space.

To go a bit more in on that, I'm bringing up Battle Revolutions again. When a Pokemon attacked the camera didn't just sit in front of or behind the Pokemon as the attack happened. No, the camera was more dynamic and getting in more visual angles like multiple still shot angles (from above, below, eye level; granted I think this was probably more a Pokemon-by-Pokemon basis but it is one idea they could use), following behind or next to the Pokemon as it moves into the attack (the camera angle also hiding the "contact" of the attack giving the illusion it "hit"), and sometimes giving us a point-of-view of the defending Pokemon as the attack is unleashed with a sudden switch to the defending Pokemon reeling back.

The Pokemon battles can still be turn-based, but that doesn't mean the camera can't take advantage of the 3D space it now exists in.
 
Haha yep, that's exactly where I got it from lol.

Hmm yeah, I definitely agree with your points about the Pokemon models and animations and I completely overlooked that fact that technically DP were the first use of 3D in Pokemon. I can also see that moving to 3D is not inherently bad and I agree that, if Game Freak actually implemented it correctly, the Pokemon games could undoubtedly look fantastic in full 3D. It's just that they've not fully realised it yet, like you say, which makes me hesitant to think that it is still the correct direction. So you're right that I shouldn't write it off so wholeheartedly just yet. I think I'm also just a sucker for the graphical styles that I mentioned above, and gen five.

The games transition to 3D on the 3DS is also notable in one sense, that the games can not always maintain consistent performance in-battle. The game is not doing anything visually taxing, at most needing to handle like 6 models on screen at a time in a mostly empty 3d space, and they ran like hell in the 3DS games. In my most current playthrough of X/Y the game slows down noticeably on a New 3DS XL as soon as you turn on the 3D slider, even in single battles. There's like 2 models on screen, what's so difficult about that? Now, I have not played through the Alola games on the New 3DS XL, only on the original 3DS (lol @ the Alola games performance on the OG 3DS though, its a joke and a half), but from what I tell from videos, say from the VGC Championships, when there is a lot going on it still chugs.
Battle Starts around 1:25, and just from the start the slowdown becomes real noticeable at around 1:50.
A showcase of the games being played at the highest level of competition, and with exactly 6 models in an 3D space with a sparse background the game visually starts to slow down and drop frames. While In Sword and Shield the problem is less notable in battles, but I've noticed some drops when Dynamax + Sandstorm is in play on online matches. However, things like turning on online connectivity in sword and shield kills the games performance if you are in a wild area. A few more 3d models are apparently too difficult :'( .

Aside from the issues from the shift to 3D in terms of graphics, style, and movement, the fact that the battles run poorly is a massive problem. It's the most glaring issues in these games in my eyes and honestly more important to me than the other issues with the games that people bring up. Smash 4 was able to reach 60fps in 3d on a standard 3DS, but Pokemon Y struggles to maintain something stable in battle in 3D. Sometimes I feel like i'm going insane looking at these games. Battling is the main part of the games and Game Freak did not get it to always run smoothly during the 3DS era, and it still crops up on the Switch games. Everything I may like about them is brought down by the realization that those games can't always stably run. It's honestly hard for me to fathom that this was not a larger issue with the 3DS games, and difficult to explain. If the game starts slowing down and dropping frames in a simple battle there's something larger that's wrong.

The main takeaway from me here is that I think Pokemon's 3D shift (on the 3DS games) is pretty poor (not withstanding the design issues that
ScraftyIsTheBest noted before) Battles, the main component of the game, experience massive slowdowns and poor performance while not doing anything that interesting. While writing this I had to check how Smash 4 ran on the original 3DS to make sure I'm not insane. Smash 4 runs and looks great, no slowdowns even with the 3D enabled. However in Pokemon Y my Farfetch'd squaring off against Korrina's Machoke causes the game to noticeably choke when the 3D is enabled, and experience random slowdowns when 3D is not enabled, even on a New 3DS XL. There should not be these framerate issues, and its inexcusable how the Alola games perform so poorly as they do on the original 3DS hardware.

After a brief check, Alpha Sapphire and Sun (the other 3DS pokemon games I have) have less framerate issues in battle on a New 3DS XL. There are still some slowdowns, in AS when the 3d slider is turned on (but less than Y), and in Sun in double battles (less noticable, more apparent with weather / terrain). However, this does not make up for the poor performance of Sun on a original 3DS, the battles are not doing anything complicated, but the instant more than two pokemon are on screen or a totem pokemon activates their aura boost the game slows down hard.

- The route exploration and design is another key factor to me. Routes in the recent games are still in a top-down perspective and still designed from a 2D perspective. Mainland Galar in Sword and Shield has a lot of cases of corridor syndrome with many of its routes and the routes are just too linear and don't incentivize much exploration at all. On one hand, I think the Wild Areas, especially the Isle of Armor and Crown Tundra from the DLC, show a lot of promise and are a step in the right direction, and I think if Game Freak could go that route in designing future regions and routes I think there's a lot of potential to have an incredibly compelling Pokemon region to explore in 3D! Full on camera rotation and control stick movement, and dynamic environments and perhaps some interesting designs to make the routes more lively, dynamic, and explorable. HMs are an outdated mechanic, granted, but having ways in which you can bring a Pokemon with you and have it help you explore and navigate obstacles in an environment is still also something they could work on without having to use Hidden Machines. Sword and Shield's mainland Galar has shown that they still don't really know how to design good routes without that. There are perhaps other ways in which routes could become more dynamic and explorable and actually compelling to explore that other people could think of.

- Now granted, they don't need to be totally "open-world" and non-linear, and there can still be a linear progression between cities and routes, and there needs to be given that Pokemon is an RPG. But make each route in itself dynamic and create incentive to explore and make it feel truly alive in 3D and we could have some really great regions in 3D. Unova in particular has a lot of potential if Game Freak breaks out of their current mentality.

- With routes in general, adding on to the above they should arguably be more wider and cover more area to be a dynamic place instead of straight paths like before. The later 2D games like Gens 4 and 5 managed to deliver incredibly great and dynamic routes, especially BW2, despite their inherent limitations, and have more to do in them to accommodate 3D perspective. Cities especially need a good deal of buffing up to them. Add more to them, like have more notable attractions and buildings to draw more attention to them and have compelling, explorable buildings inside of them that make the world feel more alive in that sense.

The mainland Galar region I find does not frequently take advantage of any verticality that the 3D space gives except for some tricks and spots that the fixed camera can hide. In the Crown Tundra, I feel like: "wow, there's a hill I can climb and an old dead tree at the top, gonna check it out," while in the mainland, its "wow, the Stomping Tantrum TM is "hidden" because of the camera. great." All the Galarian routes are something you see once and never think twice about because you have essentially explored all there is to explore. There's no use of the space to make it seem like I'm traveling a long journey to the next town with my closest pokemon pals, its more like I'm taking a short walk. Or the games could be capturing the true experience of traveling around the United Kingdom. Probably a short walk is all it takes right? :bloblul: (note: i've never been to the UK, any comments made here are in jest).
 
But yeah, Hoenn's mon distribution was pretty awesome when you think about it.
Ehh
RSEs water mon distribution is pretty terrible. Tentacool and Wingull are overrepped
Same with Poochyena, but at least Grass is avoidable and only a 20% spawn rate, unlike Waters 65%

I do agree about interesting early route mons though. Not rodents, Dark and Normal, Wurmple being a split evo line, and Guts Swellow later
Too bad Lotad line suffers movepool wise in-game. Same with Seedot
 
The real problem is that every game is still being designed with the same mentality as Gen 3, and they're still locked in the 2D era mentality even with the transition to 3D.
Not only the same mentality, but in many cases the same code as well. There's a reason why battles are so sluggish: the "order of events" in a Pokémon turn hasn't been changed since the GBA days.
 
Okay so it's time to talk about the EXP Share and overall talk about level curves in general. I've more or less spent the past several months playing most of the Pokemon games and marathoning them, but here's what I think about the EXP Share mechanic, and how it's related to overall difficulty of the games.

But the main unpopular opinion I have here is that the EXP Share isn't making the games easier. What it really does is that it makes the games less tedious. EXP Share by itself makes spreading the EXP across the party much easier so now everyone gradually levels up in strength more quickly. And as a result, it's easier to keep up with the level curve of the game and keep your whole team up to par with the levels of the Trainers you face across the game. Especially if you're using a full team of six. In that sense, it reduces the need for extensive grinding and allows you to not need to put in the tedium to make sure your team is up to par with where the game wants you to be level-wise at each point.

The Pokemon games in general are not that hard. Build a good team, understand type matchups, and be on part or just a little underleveled with your opponents, and you're all set: you can just beat them easy peasy because none of them have EVs or competitive movesets. Sun and Moon were so far one of the few examples of a legitimately challenging game because the Totem Pokemon had genuinely good movesets and teammates to create truly compelling battles.

Gen 3 and Gen 4's level curves created artificial difficulty by being steep to the point where you need to grind extensively to catch up at various points if you want to keep up with the level curve. And there was a way to do that: they had Trainer rematches. The amount of experience you can gain without Trainer Eyes/Match Call/Vs. Seeker in those games is pretty thin, so if you use a full team of six, you're gonna be underleveled without relying on the Trainer rematches. As an example, look no further than Lueroi's very well known Sapphire and LeafGreen walkthroughs, where his teams were clearly horribly underleveled. So you need to grind, especially in RSE, FRLG, and DP and HGSS, and basically the game wants you to backtrack on a regular basis and find all those rematch-upgraded Trainers and rebattle them at every conceivable point. If you do that, your Pokemon will be fine in terms of levels and will be up to snuff with the level curve, and the games aren't too hard if you do that to catch up. But that's not actually challenge. That's tedium. That's putting in extra time and effort to raise your team so that they catch up, including the extra backtracking you have to do throughout the region to go find all those rematchable Trainers all over again and battle them.

As an example of how much time this adds, in my latest Diamond playthrough where I constantly backtracked and found every possible Trainer at every opportunity and rematched, including Trainers in hidden places via Surf/Rock Climb, once I was at the League my playthrough was around 30 hours long. After the post game I had spent around 50 hours. Meanwhile, in my Y playthrough, after doing practically everything including the post-game, I had spent around 25 hours. That's half the time I spent on Diamond.

My BW1 playthrough after doing everything up to Alder was also around 25 hours long. But in this case, the games may not be that hard, but the key thing is that Gen 5, despite not having the EXP Share, had a genuinely good level curve and combined with the EXP system of that generation, made sure that you were more or less up to snuff with a good team level wise. BW2 arguably was even better and had a very smooth level curve including the post game (whereas BW1's post game levels spike immediately from the low 50's to 62-65). There were also very easy training spots.

Which leads to the other problem, which is that Game Freak clearly optimized XY and SM's level curves in such a way that the EXP Share should be toggled. In other words, constantly turn it on and off at various points. XY's level curve is very strange in that it flatlines at certain points then becomes incredibly steep at other points. There are quite a few notable level jumps in both XY and SM where you absolutely need to use EXP Share to catch up. I found myself actually toggling the EXP Share on and off at various points, as from my experience with XY, if you keep EXP Share off the entire time, you will end up sorely underleveled for the League. Keep in on the entire game, however, and you will be severely overleveled and curbstomp everything in sight. There are clear points in the game where you are expected to turn it on, namely around the Reflection Cave point, and then are expected to turn it back off at other points. Same with SM, where it's ideal to keep it off for most of Ula'Ula and Akala but turn it on towards the end of Akala and the whole Aether and Poni segments as around Poni the level curve gets really steep.

There's a problem there where for the most optimal experience, you basically have to turn EXP Share on at different points to catch up to a steep level jump. But that requires you to keep track of whether you have EXP Share on or off and keep up with the curve. Granted, however, this still does reduce tedium, as while Gen 3 and Gen 4 run off a similar level curve style as Gens 6 and 7, the older gens made you use Trainer rematches to grind your team which adds tedium, while the Gens 6 and 7 had a togglable EXP Share mechanic, which while less tedious, requires you to go into the bag and turn it on and off several times.

That being said, the use of EXP Share in newer gens does in fact, reduce tedium. As I said, it's not the challenge that's going down in recent games, it's the amount of time and effort you have to spend on training your team that's getting shorter. But even then, however, Game Freak's level curves still make it so that EXP Share should be on only at certain points, so it's still not perfect in that regard. Pokemon isn't, and never really has been, a challenging experience. The older games were just a lot slower, and necessitated significantly more grinding and time to keep a team of 6 on par with the level curve of those games. In other words, a lot grindier. So in other words, the newer games are about as difficult, per se, in terms of the actual challenge of the battles, as the previous games. But they require less actual grinding to keep up in terms of experience, and the EXP Share ensures that that tedium is reduced. Which is why playing the newer games feels "easier", per se, it's that the games require less time to catch up with the level curve and thus can be completed efficiently more quickly. Thankfully, Sword and Shield, despite having permanent EXP Share, had a pretty well designed level curve overall, albeit still a little flawed on that front and the gyms were still on the easy end (Leon on the other hand though is legit a great Champion and had a really good team).

Now granted, there is perhaps a charm to that old tedium that people find likable and why they would prefer having the EXP Share off. Investing that sheer level of time and effort to raise a team by backtracking and grinding, and putting in the effort to raise each and every one of your Pokemon, can feel incredibly rewarding. So while the older games are still easy, per se, they were more grind-heavy, but because of there was a lot of grinding, raising your team to such a high level by the end of the game feels rewarding and extremely satisfying as a result: all of your Pokemon are where they are now because you worked so hard with each and every one of them. Even though the EXP Share reduces tedium and grinding, there's a psychological downside to that: it means that getting your team to become high level and strong doesn't feel as rewarding anymore because you basically just did the bare minimum to make your team strong. Like, wait, that's it? So while tedium is pretty old school, older fans probably liked that because the grinding through Trainer rematches can still have that psychological satisfaction when you do finally beat the Champion and the League and complete your adventure.

Now perhaps, a best of both worlds would likely be ideal. BW2, and Gen 5 overall, had the best designed level curve of all the games and ensured a very smooth experience without an extensive need for grinding. And that was where the current EXP Share mechanics didn't exist. Gen 6 and Gen 7 had the EXP Share as an optional thing, and perhaps that's for the best maybe. Or they could make that EXP Share permanent but better optimize the level curve.

But the main thing is, as far as actual challenge and difficulty goes, the level curve alone isn't what will constitute genuine challenge. Good teams, good Pokemon with good movesets, and IVs or maybe even a bit of EVs will go a long way in creating a genuinely challenging Pokemon experience. The Totem Pokemon, while taking it a step too far, are a pretty good example of what real challenge is. But granted, challenge should likely be an option and going back to Gen 5, having a Challenge mode like BW2 did, except now with Pokemon that had legitimately good movesets, items, EVs maybe, and vice versa, will go a long way in creating a good experience for veteran players. After all, Pokemon is a franchise meant to be kid-friendly, and so the current overall difficulty of the games is fine as a default, but there should be options as well for the more veteran/established people who would prefer something challenging. BW2 at least constitutes the best designed examples of a well designed level curve and having good challenge.

I'm rambling at this point, but this is basically my main point about EXP Share: it alone does not make the games easier as much as it does reduce tedium. It reduces the need for grinding that older games absolutely mandated to keep up with the level curve, but even then Game Freak hasn't totally nailed making a level curve that works perfectly with it always on, which is also another issue that needs to be approached. That being said, the current EXP Share in and of itself is a fine concept and it's not an issue when it comes to the issue of difficulty of the games.
 
But the main unpopular opinion I have here is that the EXP Share isn't making the games easier. What it really does is that it makes the games less tedious. EXP Share by itself makes spreading the EXP across the party much easier so now everyone gradually levels up in strength more quickly. And as a result, it's easier to keep up with the level curve of the game and keep your whole team up to par with the levels of the Trainers you face across the game. Especially if you're using a full team of six. In that sense, it reduces the need for extensive grinding and allows you to not need to put in the tedium to make sure your team is up to par with where the game wants you to be level-wise at each point.

I agree though I still think they need to dial back the Exp. Share (especially if they want to always keep it on).

Giving it some thought (and not suggesting my "Level Cap" idea), I think I have an idea how they could lessen the intrusiveness of the Exp. Share but keep it as an anti-tedium tool: Have it so the Exp. Share only gives experience to Pokemon who Levels are lower than the highest level member of your party. Unless you keep using the same Pokemon for every battle, you'll likely keep switching around Pokemon and if you do that than I think this change would keep your Pokemon's levels at a decent curve as the Pokemon(s) with the highest levels won't be getting experience unless they participated in the battle thus giving all your other Pokemon a chance to catch-up.
 
Okay so it's time to talk about the EXP Share and overall talk about level curves in general. I've more or less spent the past several months playing most of the Pokemon games and marathoning them, but here's what I think about the EXP Share mechanic, and how it's related to overall difficulty of the games.

But the main unpopular opinion I have here is that the EXP Share isn't making the games easier. What it really does is that it makes the games less tedious. EXP Share by itself makes spreading the EXP across the party much easier so now everyone gradually levels up in strength more quickly. And as a result, it's easier to keep up with the level curve of the game and keep your whole team up to par with the levels of the Trainers you face across the game. Especially if you're using a full team of six. In that sense, it reduces the need for extensive grinding and allows you to not need to put in the tedium to make sure your team is up to par with where the game wants you to be level-wise at each point.

The Pokemon games in general are not that hard. Build a good team, understand type matchups, and be on part or just a little underleveled with your opponents, and you're all set: you can just beat them easy peasy because none of them have EVs or competitive movesets. Sun and Moon were so far one of the few examples of a legitimately challenging game because the Totem Pokemon had genuinely good movesets and teammates to create truly compelling battles.

Gen 3 and Gen 4's level curves created artificial difficulty by being steep to the point where you need to grind extensively to catch up at various points if you want to keep up with the level curve. And there was a way to do that: they had Trainer rematches. The amount of experience you can gain without Trainer Eyes/Match Call/Vs. Seeker in those games is pretty thin, so if you use a full team of six, you're gonna be underleveled without relying on the Trainer rematches. As an example, look no further than Lueroi's very well known Sapphire and LeafGreen walkthroughs, where his teams were clearly horribly underleveled. So you need to grind, especially in RSE, FRLG, and DP and HGSS, and basically the game wants you to backtrack on a regular basis and find all those rematch-upgraded Trainers and rebattle them at every conceivable point. If you do that, your Pokemon will be fine in terms of levels and will be up to snuff with the level curve, and the games aren't too hard if you do that to catch up. But that's not actually challenge. That's tedium. That's putting in extra time and effort to raise your team so that they catch up, including the extra backtracking you have to do throughout the region to go find all those rematchable Trainers all over again and battle them.

As an example of how much time this adds, in my latest Diamond playthrough where I constantly backtracked and found every possible Trainer at every opportunity and rematched, including Trainers in hidden places via Surf/Rock Climb, once I was at the League my playthrough was around 30 hours long. After the post game I had spent around 50 hours. Meanwhile, in my Y playthrough, after doing practically everything including the post-game, I had spent around 25 hours. That's half the time I spent on Diamond.

My BW1 playthrough after doing everything up to Alder was also around 25 hours long. But in this case, the games may not be that hard, but the key thing is that Gen 5, despite not having the EXP Share, had a genuinely good level curve and combined with the EXP system of that generation, made sure that you were more or less up to snuff with a good team level wise. BW2 arguably was even better and had a very smooth level curve including the post game (whereas BW1's post game levels spike immediately from the low 50's to 62-65). There were also very easy training spots.

Which leads to the other problem, which is that Game Freak clearly optimized XY and SM's level curves in such a way that the EXP Share should be toggled. In other words, constantly turn it on and off at various points. XY's level curve is very strange in that it flatlines at certain points then becomes incredibly steep at other points. There are quite a few notable level jumps in both XY and SM where you absolutely need to use EXP Share to catch up. I found myself actually toggling the EXP Share on and off at various points, as from my experience with XY, if you keep EXP Share off the entire time, you will end up sorely underleveled for the League. Keep in on the entire game, however, and you will be severely overleveled and curbstomp everything in sight. There are clear points in the game where you are expected to turn it on, namely around the Reflection Cave point, and then are expected to turn it back off at other points. Same with SM, where it's ideal to keep it off for most of Ula'Ula and Akala but turn it on towards the end of Akala and the whole Aether and Poni segments as around Poni the level curve gets really steep.

There's a problem there where for the most optimal experience, you basically have to turn EXP Share on at different points to catch up to a steep level jump. But that requires you to keep track of whether you have EXP Share on or off and keep up with the curve. Granted, however, this still does reduce tedium, as while Gen 3 and Gen 4 run off a similar level curve style as Gens 6 and 7, the older gens made you use Trainer rematches to grind your team which adds tedium, while the Gens 6 and 7 had a togglable EXP Share mechanic, which while less tedious, requires you to go into the bag and turn it on and off several times.

That being said, the use of EXP Share in newer gens does in fact, reduce tedium. As I said, it's not the challenge that's going down in recent games, it's the amount of time and effort you have to spend on training your team that's getting shorter. But even then, however, Game Freak's level curves still make it so that EXP Share should be on only at certain points, so it's still not perfect in that regard. Pokemon isn't, and never really has been, a challenging experience. The older games were just a lot slower, and necessitated significantly more grinding and time to keep a team of 6 on par with the level curve of those games. In other words, a lot grindier. So in other words, the newer games are about as difficult, per se, in terms of the actual challenge of the battles, as the previous games. But they require less actual grinding to keep up in terms of experience, and the EXP Share ensures that that tedium is reduced. Which is why playing the newer games feels "easier", per se, it's that the games require less time to catch up with the level curve and thus can be completed efficiently more quickly. Thankfully, Sword and Shield, despite having permanent EXP Share, had a pretty well designed level curve overall, albeit still a little flawed on that front and the gyms were still on the easy end (Leon on the other hand though is legit a great Champion and had a really good team).

Now granted, there is perhaps a charm to that old tedium that people find likable and why they would prefer having the EXP Share off. Investing that sheer level of time and effort to raise a team by backtracking and grinding, and putting in the effort to raise each and every one of your Pokemon, can feel incredibly rewarding. So while the older games are still easy, per se, they were more grind-heavy, but because of there was a lot of grinding, raising your team to such a high level by the end of the game feels rewarding and extremely satisfying as a result: all of your Pokemon are where they are now because you worked so hard with each and every one of them. Even though the EXP Share reduces tedium and grinding, there's a psychological downside to that: it means that getting your team to become high level and strong doesn't feel as rewarding anymore because you basically just did the bare minimum to make your team strong. Like, wait, that's it? So while tedium is pretty old school, older fans probably liked that because the grinding through Trainer rematches can still have that psychological satisfaction when you do finally beat the Champion and the League and complete your adventure.

Now perhaps, a best of both worlds would likely be ideal. BW2, and Gen 5 overall, had the best designed level curve of all the games and ensured a very smooth experience without an extensive need for grinding. And that was where the current EXP Share mechanics didn't exist. Gen 6 and Gen 7 had the EXP Share as an optional thing, and perhaps that's for the best maybe. Or they could make that EXP Share permanent but better optimize the level curve.

But the main thing is, as far as actual challenge and difficulty goes, the level curve alone isn't what will constitute genuine challenge. Good teams, good Pokemon with good movesets, and IVs or maybe even a bit of EVs will go a long way in creating a genuinely challenging Pokemon experience. The Totem Pokemon, while taking it a step too far, are a pretty good example of what real challenge is. But granted, challenge should likely be an option and going back to Gen 5, having a Challenge mode like BW2 did, except now with Pokemon that had legitimately good movesets, items, EVs maybe, and vice versa, will go a long way in creating a good experience for veteran players. After all, Pokemon is a franchise meant to be kid-friendly, and so the current overall difficulty of the games is fine as a default, but there should be options as well for the more veteran/established people who would prefer something challenging. BW2 at least constitutes the best designed examples of a well designed level curve and having good challenge.

I'm rambling at this point, but this is basically my main point about EXP Share: it alone does not make the games easier as much as it does reduce tedium. It reduces the need for grinding that older games absolutely mandated to keep up with the level curve, but even then Game Freak hasn't totally nailed making a level curve that works perfectly with it always on, which is also another issue that needs to be approached. That being said, the current EXP Share in and of itself is a fine concept and it's not an issue when it comes to the issue of difficulty of the games.

I wrote shorter essays in college, geez!

Now, I ain't going to demonize the new Exp. All. But there are some serious, serious issues with it.
The worst, and most overlooked is that it doesn't play nice with the Exp. Groups, which have been straight-up mistakes from day 1, but it gets ugly here.

If you got a Slow Group mon, and you try to keep your team evenly leveled, you'll definitely wind up having to use that mon more than the rest.

Speaking of which, this bothered me when I played USUM with the Exp. All on the whole time. I had to run 12 mons to break even with the level curve. That meant I barely got to actually use them.

Now, there is a positive thing about it. It definitely makes grinding quicker or straight-up unnecessary.

On the other hand, it utterly fails at the Exp. Share's original purpose of helping a lower-leveled teammate catch up with the rest of the party.
The fact that if I boot up USUM, catch a Cutiefly 4 levels below my party, turn on the Exp. All and the whole party will get experience instead of just the one mon that actually needs it is a disaster and nothing but poor design. The scaling Exp. isn't enough to offset that issue.
 
I wrote shorter essays in college, geez!

Lol it ended up longer than I thought it would be haha (Many of my posts on the internet in general end up pretty long). But it only took me a few minutes really. Once I get going, it just keeps flowing. I remember back in high school I had to give a speech for an assignment and managed to pull it straight out of improv with very minimal preparation and did well on it.

Now, I ain't going to demonize the new Exp. All. But there are some serious, serious issues with it.
The worst, and most overlooked is that it doesn't play nice with the Exp. Groups, which have been straight-up mistakes from day 1, but it gets ugly here.

If you got a Slow Group mon, and you try to keep your team evenly leveled, you'll definitely wind up having to use that mon more than the rest.

Speaking of which, this bothered me when I played USUM with the Exp. All on the whole time. I had to run 12 mons to break even with the level curve. That meant I barely got to actually use them.

Now, there is a positive thing about it. It definitely makes grinding quicker or straight-up unnecessary.

On the other hand, it utterly fails at the Exp. Share's original purpose of helping a lower-leveled teammate catch up with the rest of the party.
The fact that if I boot up USUM, catch a Cutiefly 4 levels below my party, turn on the Exp. All and the whole party will get experience instead of just the one mon that actually needs it is a disaster and nothing but poor design. The scaling Exp. isn't enough to offset that issue.

I think Codraroll can probably testify to the first (he talked about the misery of having to use a Pupitar and the struggles of raising it). I can also relate having attempted to raise a Goomy and Beldum/Metang throughout USUM.

But yeah, it's a flawed execution. It basically means Pokemon in different EXP Groups will either get ahead or fall behind, which means certain Pokemon will end up overused or underused on a playthrough regardless of how good they are.

As for the second issue...yeah, I think the only way you can really get to do that is to use the bait-and-switch technique even with the EXP Share on.

I agree though I still think they need to dial back the Exp. Share (especially if they want to always keep it on).

Giving it some thought (and not suggesting my "Level Cap" idea), I think I have an idea how they could lessen the intrusiveness of the Exp. Share but keep it as an anti-tedium tool: Have it so the Exp. Share only gives experience to Pokemon who Levels are lower than the highest level member of your party. Unless you keep using the same Pokemon for every battle, you'll likely keep switching around Pokemon and if you do that than I think this change would keep your Pokemon's levels at a decent curve as the Pokemon(s) with the highest levels won't be getting experience unless they participated in the battle thus giving all your other Pokemon a chance to catch-up.

Yeah, as I said, the execution is far from perfect. In Gen 6 it's especially egregious because the level curve wasn't perfectly optimized to have it on except at a few distinct points where the levels spike immensely (especially around Victory Road, where there's a huge level jump). Turn it on all the time, and you'll be too strong with a team in the 70's. Turn it off all the time, and your team will be sorely underleveled for the Elite Four and Champion at the low-mid 50's at most. I found that the best way to use EXP Share in Gens 6 and 7 was to actually switch it on and off at various points: turn it on when the level curve gets steeper, then turn it off for other points to ensure I don't go too over the level curve. It's a flawed execution and they haven't really nailed the level curves to utilize the EXP Share all mechanic (especially since Sword and Shield's IoA also has permanent EXP Charm which is even worse!). They should either better optimize the level curves or let the EXP Share be turned off.
 
Okay so it's time to talk about the EXP Share and overall talk about level curves in general. I've more or less spent the past several months playing most of the Pokemon games and marathoning them, but here's what I think about the EXP Share mechanic, and how it's related to overall difficulty of the games.

But the main unpopular opinion I have here is that the EXP Share isn't making the games easier. What it really does is that it makes the games less tedious. EXP Share by itself makes spreading the EXP across the party much easier so now everyone gradually levels up in strength more quickly. And as a result, it's easier to keep up with the level curve of the game and keep your whole team up to par with the levels of the Trainers you face across the game. Especially if you're using a full team of six. In that sense, it reduces the need for extensive grinding and allows you to not need to put in the tedium to make sure your team is up to par with where the game wants you to be level-wise at each point.

The Pokemon games in general are not that hard. Build a good team, understand type matchups, and be on part or just a little underleveled with your opponents, and you're all set: you can just beat them easy peasy because none of them have EVs or competitive movesets. Sun and Moon were so far one of the few examples of a legitimately challenging game because the Totem Pokemon had genuinely good movesets and teammates to create truly compelling battles.

Gen 3 and Gen 4's level curves created artificial difficulty by being steep to the point where you need to grind extensively to catch up at various points if you want to keep up with the level curve
. And there was a way to do that: they had Trainer rematches. The amount of experience you can gain without Trainer Eyes/Match Call/Vs. Seeker in those games is pretty thin, so if you use a full team of six, you're gonna be underleveled without relying on the Trainer rematches. As an example, look no further than Lueroi's very well known Sapphire and LeafGreen walkthroughs, where his teams were clearly horribly underleveled. So you need to grind, especially in RSE, FRLG, and DP and HGSS, and basically the game wants you to backtrack on a regular basis and find all those rematch-upgraded Trainers and rebattle them at every conceivable point. If you do that, your Pokemon will be fine in terms of levels and will be up to snuff with the level curve, and the games aren't too hard if you do that to catch up. But that's not actually challenge. That's tedium. That's putting in extra time and effort to raise your team so that they catch up, including the extra backtracking you have to do throughout the region to go find all those rematchable Trainers all over again and battle them.

As an example of how much time this adds, in my latest Diamond playthrough where I constantly backtracked and found every possible Trainer at every opportunity and rematched, including Trainers in hidden places via Surf/Rock Climb, once I was at the League my playthrough was around 30 hours long. After the post game I had spent around 50 hours. Meanwhile, in my Y playthrough, after doing practically everything including the post-game, I had spent around 25 hours. That's half the time I spent on Diamond.

My BW1 playthrough after doing everything up to Alder was also around 25 hours long. But in this case, the games may not be that hard, but the key thing is that Gen 5, despite not having the EXP Share, had a genuinely good level curve and combined with the EXP system of that generation, made sure that you were more or less up to snuff with a good team level wise. BW2 arguably was even better and had a very smooth level curve including the post game (whereas BW1's post game levels spike immediately from the low 50's to 62-65). There were also very easy training spots.

Which leads to the other problem, which is that Game Freak clearly optimized XY and SM's level curves in such a way that the EXP Share should be toggled. In other words, constantly turn it on and off at various points. XY's level curve is very strange in that it flatlines at certain points then becomes incredibly steep at other points. There are quite a few notable level jumps in both XY and SM where you absolutely need to use EXP Share to catch up. I found myself actually toggling the EXP Share on and off at various points, as from my experience with XY, if you keep EXP Share off the entire time, you will end up sorely underleveled for the League. Keep in on the entire game, however, and you will be severely overleveled and curbstomp everything in sight. There are clear points in the game where you are expected to turn it on, namely around the Reflection Cave point, and then are expected to turn it back off at other points. Same with SM, where it's ideal to keep it off for most of Ula'Ula and Akala but turn it on towards the end of Akala and the whole Aether and Poni segments as around Poni the level curve gets really steep.

There's a problem there where for the most optimal experience, you basically have to turn EXP Share on at different points to catch up to a steep level jump. But that requires you to keep track of whether you have EXP Share on or off and keep up with the curve. Granted, however, this still does reduce tedium, as while Gen 3 and Gen 4 run off a similar level curve style as Gens 6 and 7, the older gens made you use Trainer rematches to grind your team which adds tedium, while the Gens 6 and 7 had a togglable EXP Share mechanic, which while less tedious, requires you to go into the bag and turn it on and off several times.

That being said, the use of EXP Share in newer gens does in fact, reduce tedium. As I said, it's not the challenge that's going down in recent games, it's the amount of time and effort you have to spend on training your team that's getting shorter. But even then, however, Game Freak's level curves still make it so that EXP Share should be on only at certain points, so it's still not perfect in that regard. Pokemon isn't, and never really has been, a challenging experience. The older games were just a lot slower, and necessitated significantly more grinding and time to keep a team of 6 on par with the level curve of those games. In other words, a lot grindier. So in other words, the newer games are about as difficult, per se, in terms of the actual challenge of the battles, as the previous games. But they require less actual grinding to keep up in terms of experience, and the EXP Share ensures that that tedium is reduced. Which is why playing the newer games feels "easier", per se, it's that the games require less time to catch up with the level curve and thus can be completed efficiently more quickly. Thankfully, Sword and Shield, despite having permanent EXP Share, had a pretty well designed level curve overall, albeit still a little flawed on that front and the gyms were still on the easy end (Leon on the other hand though is legit a great Champion and had a really good team).

Now granted, there is perhaps a charm to that old tedium that people find likable and why they would prefer having the EXP Share off. Investing that sheer level of time and effort to raise a team by backtracking and grinding, and putting in the effort to raise each and every one of your Pokemon, can feel incredibly rewarding. So while the older games are still easy, per se, they were more grind-heavy, but because of there was a lot of grinding, raising your team to such a high level by the end of the game feels rewarding and extremely satisfying as a result: all of your Pokemon are where they are now because you worked so hard with each and every one of them. Even though the EXP Share reduces tedium and grinding, there's a psychological downside to that: it means that getting your team to become high level and strong doesn't feel as rewarding anymore because you basically just did the bare minimum to make your team strong. Like, wait, that's it? So while tedium is pretty old school, older fans probably liked that because the grinding through Trainer rematches can still have that psychological satisfaction when you do finally beat the Champion and the League and complete your adventure.

Now perhaps, a best of both worlds would likely be ideal. BW2, and Gen 5 overall, had the best designed level curve of all the games and ensured a very smooth experience without an extensive need for grinding. And that was where the current EXP Share mechanics didn't exist. Gen 6 and Gen 7 had the EXP Share as an optional thing, and perhaps that's for the best maybe. Or they could make that EXP Share permanent but better optimize the level curve.

But the main thing is, as far as actual challenge and difficulty goes, the level curve alone isn't what will constitute genuine challenge. Good teams, good Pokemon with good movesets, and IVs or maybe even a bit of EVs will go a long way in creating a genuinely challenging Pokemon experience. The Totem Pokemon, while taking it a step too far, are a pretty good example of what real challenge is. But granted, challenge should likely be an option and going back to Gen 5, having a Challenge mode like BW2 did, except now with Pokemon that had legitimately good movesets, items, EVs maybe, and vice versa, will go a long way in creating a good experience for veteran players. After all, Pokemon is a franchise meant to be kid-friendly, and so the current overall difficulty of the games is fine as a default, but there should be options as well for the more veteran/established people who would prefer something challenging. BW2 at least constitutes the best designed examples of a well designed level curve and having good challenge.

I'm rambling at this point, but this is basically my main point about EXP Share: it alone does not make the games easier as much as it does reduce tedium. It reduces the need for grinding that older games absolutely mandated to keep up with the level curve, but even then Game Freak hasn't totally nailed making a level curve that works perfectly with it always on, which is also another issue that needs to be approached. That being said, the current EXP Share in and of itself is a fine concept and it's not an issue when it comes to the issue of difficulty of the games.

Very well said, and I agree totally. We need to distinguish between tedium and genuine difficulty, something I think tier lists could even use to drive a new way of tier listing that allows players to enjoy the game and challenge themselves if they wish - without falling prey to the level curve.

Gen 7 was legitimately tough as you said in a way few or none were with excellent strategies on the opponents' part, Gen 4 and Gen 3 included for sure. I'd add that the Johto games have the worst level curves I've ever seen in any game, by far - to the point that even a 4-mon team that regularly fights trainers, uses rare candies, etc. in some cases may still have an unevolved starter (my Quilava) after the seventh badge.
 
I feel Exp Share should help the last 3 mons in the party, not the immediate first 3
Since typically players can only really effectively balance between 3 leads otherwise
 
Back
Top