Unpopular opinions

You keep playing until HeartGold and SoulSilver, the new games, come out, and then you don't return to Platinum.

I don't think Game Freak designs Pokémon to be replayable. Whether that's a good or bad thing depends on one's preferences (to me it's just a bonus; heck, most of my favourite games have NO replay value whatsoever).

Outside of that one time I accidentally deleted my VC Red savegame, I don't remember if I've ever replayed a Pokémon game. Just a single savegame until the next game comes out, and then "goodbye".

Shaq Nope.gif

You heard it here first fellas. The game that has a gigantic emphasis on the number of options you can build a team with and trade with friends is NOT meant to be replayed.

By the way, just what exactly do you mean by "keep playing until the next one comes out?" Playing what? A lot of these games didn't even have online options, to begin with.
 
You heard it here first fellas. The game that has a gigantic emphasis on the number of options you can build a team with and trade with friends is NOT meant to be replayed.

With its huge emphasis on keeping a collection, until Bank and HOME were released, it was almost impossible to replay a game without losing everything you had (you needed another console or make a very extensive trading process).

... and by the point that drawback is gone, there's a new game.

But now with Bank and HOME one could truly replay to their heart's desire... as difficult as it might be for me to find a reason.
 
Last edited:
Mainline mons games just don't have the depth and cost-benefit for me and many others to justify dumping a hundred hours into them.

Having more options to build a team with, like Plat does have, helps depth and cost-benefit for that depth somewhat, but they aren't enough for me. Still the same cities, cutscenes, music, battles, characters, grinding pools, etc. Sure, I still could spend a hundred hours to truly experience Plat's teambuilding variety against the same set of obstacles...

Or... I could play a different route in Three Houses, which also has intricate team composition you can't fully experience on one playthrough, but also has many totally new characters, music, story developments, and battles. I could play a new world in Terraria, which has intricate loadout composition you can't fully experience the first time through and an almost completely rebuilt environment. Hell, I could replay a Persona game, and re-experience a much deeper story/character set and use difficulty settings to better experience the depth of team composition.

Only reasons I'd dump that much time in a mons game are if I'm specifically targeting one feature (e.g. battle facility) or it's been a long time since I last played so that novelty returns. There are features that people find worthy of targeting, but like, not only do new games also have those kinds of features, GF has made some of them better (breeding, shiny hunting, wifi-competitive teambuilding, and wifi battling come to mind). They don't have everything games like Plat had (Battle Factory...), but Battle Factory (not facilities as a whole) is the single feature that may possibly convince me personally to dump that kind of time into a mons game. And it hasn't yet.
 
With its huge emphasis on keeping a collection, until Bank and HOME were released, it was almost impossible to replay a game without losing everything you had (you needed another console or make a very extensive trading process).

Ah, I see, you're more of a collector.

I still don't agree with your view, because I think you're missing out on the value of games with good replayability, but now I get where you're coming from.

Having more options to build a team with, like Plat does have, helps depth and cost-benefit for that depth somewhat, but they aren't enough for me. Still the same cities, cutscenes, music, battles, characters, grinding pools, etc. Sure, I still could spend a hundred hours to truly experience Plat's teambuilding variety against the same set of obstacles...

Or... I could play a different route in Three Houses, which also has intricate team composition you can't fully experience on one playthrough, but also has many totally new characters, music, story developments, and battles. I could play a new world in Terraria, which has intricate loadout composition you can't fully experience the first time through and an almost completely rebuilt environment. Hell, I could replay a Persona game, and experience a much deeper story/character set and use difficulty settings to better experience the depth of team composition.

Training teams in-game is more organic and enjoyable than just breeding and grinding endlessly against whatever optimal methods the game got.

And there's the problem, while I can just save my team in another cart (Or backup the whole save in other ways), it's just not enjoyable to replay games that have bad pacing like USUM.

Also, a bit unfair to bring the likes of 3H that actually focus on replayability instead of post-game or online battling. I dunno, looks a bit like comparing apples to oranges.
 
WTP_BW001_before.png


They definitely are, just not for purposes of gameplay in the games. The many different silhouettes of Pokémon help make them easily distinguishable.
This. Silhouettes have got to be my favorite thing about Pokémon. Remember when we saw the shadow of melmetal, and later on, zarude and everyone just went to town? Definitely better then the “mysterious glitch” thing with sirfetch’d where everyone and their mother knew it was a farfetch’d evo
 
This. Silhouettes have got to be my favorite thing about Pokémon. Remember when we saw the shadow of melmetal, and later on, zarude and everyone just went to town? Definitely better then the “mysterious glitch” thing with sirfetch’d where everyone and their mother knew it was a farfetch’d evo

Well, to be fair with that example, even if it was just a silhouette, most people would have guessed it was a Farfetch'd evolution because it's a bird with duck feet and a gigantic stick object.

1611587934427.png
 
Also, a bit unfair to bring the likes of 3H that actually focus on replayability instead of post-game or online battling. I dunno, looks a bit like comparing apples to oranges.

The comparison I made is just the reality that explains how people behave, regardless of its fairness. If I have three games that compete for Pokemon's time, all of which share many strengths with it and are on the same consoles (Q2 re persona), and Pokemon is the least deep, has the least rewarding postgame, and is the least rewarding to replay of the group, I probably won't put 100 hours into it.
 
I still think the eeveelutions past gen 1 were a mistake (well, not financially), but thats old news

I don't think most pokémon games have that much replayability unless you're a shiny hunter. Can't say about platinum since I dropped that one as soon as I finished the main plot but even the games I really like are pretty unremarkable... I just play them to shiny hunt so I end up having a lot of playtime lol
 
I don't think most pokémon games have that much replayability unless you're a shiny hunter. I just play them to shiny hunt so I end up having a lot of playtime lol
You and me both, but I do like the stories of some of the games.

However, I feel like in a lot of the games, people focus too much on either "bad story" or "bad gameplay." JUST PICK ONE! Every time you say this, you miss the fact that even though it has bad "(Insert name here)" it has really really good "(Insert name here)." For example, ORAS has really bad story, even though these are arguably my favorite games I still agree with that. However, I felt that the difficulty and gameplay and gimmicky stuff (like SHINY HUNTING Y'ALL) were super super cool. I mean, Shiny Hunting in past games was NOT SHINY HUNTING. I mean, soft resetting for a 'Mon is just boring, especially when you do get a Shiny but competitively it's a pile o' poop. I mean, come on! The Gen 6 mechanics and all games after had better replayability because they were a bit more interesting and gimmicky than other Gens. However, the Pokemon games are fun whether or not one is better than another in one's own opinion. They're just fun. I mean, even though people don't seem to like Sword and Shield, why? Because it wasn't a Gen 4 remake. But why did people even think Gen 4 was good? I mean, SwSh are cool, fun, eye-catching, have amazing new Pokemon, so why do y'all hate it?

My point is just e happy with the games you get. My brother hated the difficulty of Gen 1 and thought it was boring, but it was all he had, so he played it. I mean, most of you guys are hating so much on the games here that I'm beginning to wonder why you even use Smogon.
 
Last edited:
My point is just e happy with the games you get. My brother hated the difficulty of Gen 1 and thought it was boring, but it was all he had, so he played it. I mean, most of you guys are hating so much on the games here that I'm beginning to wonder why you even use Smogon.

If people here truly hated the games, they wouldn't even bother talking about them.

Criticism is said when you want things to be better.
 
But why did people even think Gen 4 was good? I mean, SwSh are cool, fun, eye-catching, have amazing new Pokemon, so why do y'all hate it?

Actually, that's what I call the "generation cycle". For example; when 5th gen games came out, they get highly criticized by the community. But nowadays, this generation tends to be more and more hyped. Why ? Because people who grew up with this gen (I say this because nostalgia plays a main role in the rating of a generation, and even on a game in general) weren't old enough to post on Internet and people who were and who actually like this gen was minority. Same with Gen 4, it wasn't as popular as now when it came out.
Who knows ? 10 years later, we'll probably see people saying "SM were damn good".
 
Last edited:
You and me both, but I do like the stories of some of the games.

However, I feel like in a lot of the games, people focus too much on either "bad story" or "bad gameplay." JUST PICK ONE! Every time you say this, you miss the fact that even though it has bad "(Insert name here)" it has really really good "(Insert name here)." For example, ORAS has really bad story, even though these are arguably my favorite games I still agree with that. However, I felt that the difficulty and gameplay and gimmicky stuff (like SHINY HUNTING Y'ALL) were super super cool. I mean, Shiny Hunting in past games was NOT SHINY HUNTING. I mean, soft resetting for a 'Mon is just boring, especially when you do get a Shiny but competitively it's a pile o' poop. I mean, come on! The Gen 6 mechanics and all games after had better replayability because they were a bit more interesting and gimmicky than other Gens. However, the Pokemon games are fun whether or not one is better than another in one's own opinion. They're just fun. I mean, even though people don't seem to like Sword and Shield, why? Because it wasn't a Gen 4 remake. But why did people even think Gen 4 was good? I mean, SwSh are cool, fun, eye-catching, have amazing new Pokemon, so why do y'all hate it?

My point is just e happy with the games you get. My brother hated the difficulty of Gen 1 and thought it was boring, but it was all he had, so he played it. I mean, most of you guys are hating so much on the games here that I'm beginning to wonder why you even use Smogon.
Tbf most of us use Smogon because we grew up on the earlier and better games in the series and want things to be better, or because we play competitively and hop into this forum sometimes to discuss why the games themselves are so much worse than competitive play nowadays. Personally, I’m both.

If I were born 10 years later and my first Pokémon game was X, I probably wouldn’t be on here. I’d be a die hard fan of a different series instead, which is kind of a massive problem because if Pokémon used to be great at anything, it was audience retention.

Volt-Ikazuchi ngl I’m surprised you gave pushback to me saying families WITH a switch will shove that in front of their 4 year old instead of an iPad. I think you responded to the issue of Pokémon’s increasingly bad marketing to parents, but even that’s arguably not a big problem because the anime does half the marketing anyway. And besides, after the age of 4 kids can just tell their parents that they’d like their switch at the restaurant instead of the iPad.
 
Volt-Ikazuchi ngl I’m surprised you gave pushback to me saying families WITH a switch will shove that in front of their 4 year old instead of an iPad. I think you responded to the issue of Pokémon’s increasingly bad marketing to parents, but even that’s arguably not a big problem because the anime does half the marketing anyway. And besides, after the age of 4 kids can just tell their parents that they’d like their switch at the restaurant instead of the iPad.

I partially agreed with your post, it wasn't really pushback. Basically, the kids have a bigger say on whether or not they'll get the game instead of their parents unless they have some motive to not give the kid the game they want.

And let's be real, a small child without the perspective of having played the older games won't really notice the drop in quality.

Though I did hear from a friend that his 8yo kid was bored af with SwSh and liked USUM more...

Actually, it's what I call the "generation cycle". For example; when 5th gen games came out, they get highly criticized by the community. But nowadays, this generation tends to be more and more hyped. Why ? Because people who grew up with this gen (I say this because nostalgia plays a main role in the rating of a generation, and even on a game in general) weren't old enough to post on Internet and people who were and who actually like this gen was minority. Same with Gen 4, it wasn't as popular as now when it came out.
Who knows ? 10 years later, we'll probably see people saying "SM were damn good".

There's more to it than just that, the whole "Gen 5 criticism" was mostly during the pre-release/early stage.

Once the games came out and people really sank their teeth in them, the popular opinion did an u-turn.

Same with Gen 3 and the original Dexit.
 
I don't really play online, so I gotta ask, how is it? Is the whole "Battle Timer" controversy justified or is it just a bunch of nonsense?
The online system is surprisingly solid for the official formats, the instability that you can experience with something like Smash Bros Ultimate is not really a factor in a turn based battle environment. The regular changes to the format with each Series has offered up an interesting variety to keep battles and teambuilding interesting. I'd say it offers a pretty nice competitive experience, offering interesting battles and an evolving metagame. If you don't want to make a team on cart, you can borrow one easily. It's also pretty easy to compete in an official online tournament, all of the Players Cup qualifiers were ladders that anyone can join. The friendly tournament option offers a neat alternative too, you can create your own ladder tournament on cart and have recorded rankings.

The issues with the battle timer stem from the non-official formats (read 6v6). The 20 minute timer on cart makes it almost impossible at times to complete games by KOing the opponent's pokemon, with games frequently ending with most of your and your opponent's team still able to battle. In game animations take up time, and in a 6v6 format with constant switching the timer makes it unviable to play 6v6 on cart. However, this is a small limitation, most people playing on cart are probably going to play the official formats anyways, and if you want to play 6v6, showdown is just a click away. I'd say the timer issue is justified to an extent, but is a more niche issue overall. In my opinion, it does not change most player's playing decisions, if your playing 6v6, you probably are playing on showdown anyways. There's less incentive to play long formats on cart and I could speculate as to why the change was made, but it would all just be speculation for an issue that most notably effects youtubers.

There's still some smaller issues as well, one of the more glaring problems with the online system is a lack of a spectator mode for online battles. When essentially every official tournament is online, there still is no way to watch battles or record them without the person playing recording them. It's already available in the LAN mode for live competitions! Footage for the Players Cup's had to be recorded by the players themselves which is pretty wild, needing to rely on one of the players to capture footage for your own competition.

Overall, I'd say the online for Sw/Sh has offered good options, if you are interested in the official formats / competitive battling. Nothing massively groundbreaking, but a good experience if you want to play competitive Pokemon.
 
Last edited:
Once the games came out and people really sank their teeth in them, the popular opinion did an u-turn.
Completely false revisionist history. Maybe in other territories, but the kind of love for Gen 5 we see nowadays took YEARS and multiple future generations to foment in the west. Perhaps there wasn't as much of a militant hatemob as there was pre-release and some select few elements like N were all-around liked but there's no way the popular opinion did this u-turn you suggest until I'd say well into Gen 7.
 
Completely false revisionist history. Maybe in other territories, but the kind of love for Gen 5 we see nowadays took YEARS and multiple future generations to foment in the west. Perhaps there wasn't as much of a militant hatemob as there was pre-release and some select few elements like N were all-around liked but there's no way the popular opinion did this u-turn you suggest until I'd say well into Gen 7.
While this is true, the initial opinion of Gen V was nowhere near as bad as every game since. It wasn’t as loved as it is now, but it was also never really disliked. Particularly B2W2 — BW were a little disliked because of only having new Pokémon and a vocal minority disliking the new designs, but B2W2 were honestly really popular from the start and that’s only grown since.
 
Last edited:
Completely false revisionist history. Maybe in other territories, but the kind of love for Gen 5 we see nowadays took YEARS and multiple future generations to foment in the west. Perhaps there wasn't as much of a militant hatemob as there was pre-release and some select few elements like N were all-around liked but there's no way the popular opinion did this u-turn you suggest until I'd say well into Gen 7.

It definitely wasn't, and while memes were flung around from both sides, the consensus was that BW1 were solid games in their own right and the criticism about the New Gen-only Dex was rendered absolutely irrelevant in BW2.

The resurgence in popularity that led to its current peak may have been caused by the Driftveil Song Meme, but there was a clear decline on the hate after the initial wave and BW1 grew on people because of its story.

Why do you think genwunners are about as rare as legit Mythical Pokémon nowadays?
Because they were blown up sky-high on BW1, that's why.
 
While this is true, the initial opinion of Gen V was nowhere near as bad as every game since. It wasn’t as loved as it is now, but it was also never really disliked. Particularly B2W2 — BW were a little disliked because of only having new Pokémon and a vocal minority disliking the next designs, but B2W2 were honestly really popular from the start and that’s only grown since.
I don't quite remember it being this way. At least from where I spent my time with the fandom during the Gen 5 days (notably Serebiiforums). I remember that Gen 5 was very heavily disliked and criticized during the early B/W days, and while B2/W2 did get a somewhat better initial reception, they were met by quite a lot of criticism as well. Many fans were upset at Game Freak for not making a third version like they usually did, or more notably, for not making the Hoenn remakes almost every Pokémon fan was screaming for at that time. From what I remember, X/Y weren't nearly as disliked as B/W upon their release. In fact, they were generally seen as better than the Gen 5 games for quite a long while afterwards. Then we got OR/AS and those seemed to divide the fandom: fans either loved them for what they had, or hated them for not having the Frontier (and sometimes for not having other things too, but those were rare). I think the reception for S/M was mostly mixed as well, they had positives which some fans praised them for, and negatives which other fans criticized them for. US/UM were initally generally negatively recieved from what I can remember, they notably got heavily criticized for having a worse story than S/M, but praise for having other things that S/M missed. Though, the fact that they were alternate versions and not sequels like B2/W2 seemed to give then an overall negative reception. Then we have LGP/E and S/S which were both very heavily criticized even before they were released! So you are right in that things have been changing for the worse, but it was pretty bad in the past too.

From what I can remember, Yung Dramps is right regarding how it took a long while before Gen 5 became one of the most loved generations. But as a disclaimer, I should say that this is just how I remember things, chances are other people have different experiences.

And since this is a good opportunity, I also want to remind everyone that this is not really unique to Gen 5 and on. Generations 3 & 4 also got heavily criticised and disliked back in the day, but then they later got loved instead. The same thing that is now happening with Gen 5. Recently, I have been seeing a lot more positivity for Gen 6 as well (though not all that much here on Smogon). I have no doubts that in a few years, Generations 6 & 7 will be the most popular generations, or among them at least.
 
Ugh, the silhouette argument again. YOU CAN'T USE THE SILHOUTTE ARGUEMENT FOR EVERY DESIGN SITUATION.

For example, in a more action-based multiplayer game where you can see the silhouette of other player's characters through solid objects to know where they are that is a situation appropriate for the silhouette argument. I'm thinking of the likes of Team Fortress 2 or Overwatch. I think in those games it's only the silhouette you have to know what character you're seeing through the object, therefore for the player to understand the situation they're seeing and to make the decision to go in or fall back they must be able to tell what characters/classes are involved from a quick glance. This is where silhouette becomes important, every character should have a unique silhouette. It goes beyond just having the character look good and distinct, there is an additional gameplay value to the silhouette being unique.

However, Pokemon is a turn-based game where once you engage in a battle (whether Wild or against a Trainer) you always know the current opponent you're facing. Therefore, the silhouette is not as important, the only time a silhouette may be used is with a Wild Battle to build-up some excitement about what Pokemon you're encountering. Because of this, SILHOUTTES ARE NOT IMPORTANT IN POKEMON. GF aren't designing every Pokemon thinking "if someone see this Pokemon as a silhouette would they be able to tell them apart?". With some Pokemon they probably do like the Starters and Legendary, but even then the design focus is more on the actual body shape and details rather then conforming the Pokemon to a certain silhouette. Pokemon wants you to see a Pokemon's detail and colors, because that's the part of the Pokemon which is most recognizable (likely because from that you can then guess Typing and possible Abilities & Moves; a silhouette of a Pokemon ain't good for that).

So going back to the discussion in hand, who cares if Eeveelutions after Gen II don't have drastically different silhouettes. The question should be whether the Eeveelution's designs get across what Type it's supposed to be.
  • Vaporeon turns blue, ears/mane turn into fins, & tail becomes a fish tail; it's now an aquatic creature so Water-type.
  • Jolteon turns yellow & ears/mane/fur all over its body becomes spiky; looks like it was just struck by lightning so Electric-type.
  • Flareon's body fur turns red while its mane/hair tuft/tail turns yellow and becomes more puffy; it looks like it's formed of fire so Fire-type.
  • Espeon turns lavender, a round jewel appears on its forehead, eyes glow, & tail has forked; sadly the symbiology of the tail is lost of most western viewers but the glowing eyes and forehead jewel may bring to mind mystics or fortunetellers so alludes to supernatural abilities, so Psychic-type since it's no dead thus can't be Ghost-type.
  • Umbreon turns black, has red eyes, & glowing yellow rings which brings to mind the moon; it's a creature you don't want encountering in the darkness so Dark-type.
  • Leafeon's body turns yellow but it's tail/tips of ears/hair tuft take on a green leafy appearance & has green leafy fur sprouts appear on its chest and legs; its a planimal now so Grass-type.
  • Sylveon turns pink, eyes turn light-blue and bug-like light, ears become more roundish, & gains bows and ribbons; it's very feminine with a touch of insect that then could bring to mind modern day depiction of fairies which are small woman with insect wings so Fairy-type.
So, what about Glaceon? Well it turns cyan/light blue which that alone could bring to mind the Ice-type. However after that you do sort of need to read inbetween the lines to confirm that suspicion. It doesn't have Ice on its body, rather its hair tuft turns rigid & blue growing too long bangs. In addition the ears and tip of its tail becomes more angular and uses the same darker color blue, a blue that also colors its feet and diamonds on its back. It's not your typical depiction of ice which is, well, ice but rather a vague notion of ice crystals. The reason for this is likely because, despite the ice crystal depiction, Glaceon is more associated with snow than hard ice. They probably designed it with the thought in mind that it hunts and hides in snow so this would be natural camouflage with additional design details to make it more visually appealing hence the hairdo. Glaceon certainly isn't winning the award for best Eeveelution design but I do think it does represent its Typing. I mean, you say Glaceon doesn't look like an Ice-type so does that mean you also think Dewgong, Jynx family, Lapras, Articuno, Swinub, Sneasel family, Delibird, Spheal family, & Arctovish also don't look like Ice-types?
I personally disagree saying are not useful for Pokémon. I took a character design course over the summer, and silouhettes were heavily emphasized. Silohettes are important because they allow you to show off the personality of the characters without revealing too much information. They were a great way to test poses before actually drawing the character itself.
With its huge emphasis on keeping a collection, until Bank and HOME were released, it was almost impossible to replay a game without losing everything you had (you needed another console or make a very extensive trading process).

... and by the point that drawback is gone, there's a new game.

But now with Bank and HOME one could truly replay to their heart's desire... as difficult as it might be for me to find a reason.
There’s also a lot of things in recent titles that I also don’t want to get rid of. I want to replay Pokémon Moon, but at the same time, I don’t want to lose all my mega stones, my certificate for beating Red at the Battle Tree, and Pokedex completion stamp ( which is the only Pokedex I completed ) . That’s my dilemma.
 
Last edited:
This is probably bordering on wishlisting, but I wonder if Pokemon could pull off some kind of New Game+ mode. Starting a new file with items and Pokemon from the old one but with all the trainers and bosses having souped-up teams to match. Like I dunno, you enter the Hall of Fame with a team of Rillaboom, Centiskorch, Gyarados, Krookodile, Corviknight and Volcarona and then when you use the feature for a new file upon reaching the Pokemon Center you find them all in the PC in their first stages again at Level 5, and all your items are kept, with the ensuing first gym having a 5 or even 6 mon team. Something like that could be really neat and fulfill the desires for more difficult gameplay and more replay value
 
This is probably bordering on wishlisting, but I wonder if Pokemon could pull off some kind of New Game+ mode. Starting a new file with items and Pokemon from the old one but with all the trainers and bosses having souped-up teams to match. Like I dunno, you enter the Hall of Fame with a team of Rillaboom, Centiskorch, Gyarados, Krookodile, Corviknight and Volcarona and then when you use the feature for a new file upon reaching the Pokemon Center you find them all in the PC in their first stages again at Level 5, and all your items are kept, with the ensuing first gym having a 5 or even 6 mon team. Something like that could be really neat and fulfill the desires for more difficult gameplay and more replay value

Not counting the first and last parts, can't you do something like that already? I mean, I haven't tried to do something like that so I don't know how HOME handles having multiple users in a single console, but it sounds feasible.
 
And since this is a good opportunity, I also want to remind everyone that this is not really unique to Gen 5 and on. Generations 3 & 4 also got heavily criticised and disliked back in the day, but then they later got loved instead.

This is true, but I do not think the initial hate for 6 or 7 was comparable in severity to the storms that initially surrounded gen5 and gen8. I don't know which of those two I think was more severe: Galar's hate has probably been more toxic (though that may partially stem from broader internet culture things), but casual players have mostly liked it since release, and the just total storm around Unova is a legendary hostility I will not soon forget. I'm moderately shocked to see things like "B/W was a little disliked because". Obviously, the hating crowd is almost always the minority, but the B/W (this isn't talking about B2W2) hostility crowd was some shit that dominated the tone for the games on the internet, just like the Galar hate crowd did shortly after release.
 
Last edited:
This is true, but I do not think the hate for 6 or 7 was comparable in severity to the storms that surrounded gen5 and gen8. I don't know which of those two I think was more severe: Galar's hate has probably been more toxic, but casual players have mostly liked it since release, and the just total storm around Unova is a legendary hostility I will not soon forget. I'm moderately shocked to see things like "Unova was a little disliked because". Obviously, the hating crowd is almost always the minority, but the Unova hostility crowd was some shit.

Yeah, Gen 5 on release was something else.

Gen 8 was far more severe imo because not only the criticism was harsher, but also because it's way less subjective and holds a lot more water.

Most of the hate on Gen 5 was related to the mon designs and the new mon-only dex.

SwSh? I think everyone knows a fair chunk of the technical issues already, so I'll spare the dead horse this beating.
 
Back
Top