I think Pokémon is becoming oversaturated.
-
Check out the relaunch of our general collection, with classic designs and new ones by our very own Pissog!
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Unpopular opinions
- Thread starter antemortem
- Start date
Can you be more specific?
There have been so many mainline Pokémon games so close together on the Switch.
While I share your overall feeling about Gen VIII, I'm sort of in the opposite camp in that I'm really in no hurry for Scarlet&Violet to arrive. Not because I expect a long development time to result in a better game (though that's certainly to be hoped) but because I genuinely feel that the best times for the franchise (and honestly the fandom as a whole) have been when there's something new on the horizon. That sense of anticipation and curiosity is one of the things I loved most about the franchise growing up, and it's where a lot of the magic happens for me.
Right now we don't know enough about S&V to say for certain whether they'll be great or terrible and that sense of unknowing is exciting. I'm still jazzed whenever they announce a new game, even if I'm not hugely invested in it (I even found myself excited for SwSh's DLCs). I've barely engaged with Gen VIII at all outside of keeping up with news and discussions on this forum and I'm still as exhausted by it as you are, and the approach of Gen IX does take some of the poison out of that.
I'm not even necessarily optimistic about Scarlet and Violet, but I feel like this time, right now, is the perfect sweet spot between the good and the bad. Maybe it's my rapidly-advancing age and the fact that I expect everything to be a disappointment nowadays (god, even writing that felt insufferable) or just the growing sense I have that Pokemon's best days are behind it, but this bit, for me, now, is the best bit. If I were a bit younger I'd be squirming with excitement and desperately wishing the new games were here already. But as things stand I'm actually really happy just to live in this moment.
Fun fact, have you ever considered the fact that the pokemon people own on their cartridge are basically NFTs of the actual Pokemon, and people have gone that far on toxicity over basically NFTs?
You don't own Charizard, you own a copy of Charizard!
What caused Generation 8 fatigue is a combination of these factors:
- PR disasters in general, especially how they addresssed Dexit.
- How mishandled SwSh and BDSP are, former having disastrous development issues and the other a result of possible misunderstandings.
- How quickly Dynamax and Gigantamax overstayed their welcome despite the interesting concept and the potentials, but mostly because of poor intergenerational distribution between older Pokémon, poor balance overall, how GF dropped the ball when the DLC arrived, and a combination with some of the worst overspecializations to date regarding new Pokémon.
- A more positive one that nonetheless contributed, how many Pokémon spin-off titles we got within a single generation.
- And lastly, how much of a tough-act-to-follow Legends: Arceus proved to be despite that game’s flaws.
Well, to be fair, when the send-off is the complete trainwreck that is Legends, it's very easy to wish for Gen VIII to end up as quickly as possible.
Had it been just Let's GO, Sword/Shield and BDSP, the generation wouldn't have such a negative light on it. Unfortunately, the already-known problems of SV don't give much hope for the future...
Last edited:
I can't say I'm tired of gen 8. Mostly because, in a way, I'm still waiting for gen 8 to begin.
I don't like the structural changes of SwSh and Arceus, and I've even barely been playing gen 8 on Showdown because I find the existence of heavy-duty boots to be miserable. Sure, I've played BDSP and MD DX, but neither makes any effort to use new mons or mechanics. Every time I'm looking at something across generations, Gen 8 comes up as "no data." I don't feel I need gen 9 immediately when there's an entire list of mons I haven't yet experienced, I feel I need a game that puts those mons in a situation worth experiencing.
Gen 9 may come for me, and leave a hole where gen 8 would be. Or, it may not, and I'll put another 150 hours into Battle Frontier Simulator 2005. I'm patient, I've waited longer for some of my other favourite series.
I don't like the structural changes of SwSh and Arceus, and I've even barely been playing gen 8 on Showdown because I find the existence of heavy-duty boots to be miserable. Sure, I've played BDSP and MD DX, but neither makes any effort to use new mons or mechanics. Every time I'm looking at something across generations, Gen 8 comes up as "no data." I don't feel I need gen 9 immediately when there's an entire list of mons I haven't yet experienced, I feel I need a game that puts those mons in a situation worth experiencing.
Gen 9 may come for me, and leave a hole where gen 8 would be. Or, it may not, and I'll put another 150 hours into Battle Frontier Simulator 2005. I'm patient, I've waited longer for some of my other favourite series.
I agree. While we don't have a release date for S/V yet, I think it is a safe bet to say that they will be released in November. At that point, three new main series games will have been released within a year. That's just too much. While I skipped BD/SP, having both L:A and S/V this close to each other does not feel good. I really wish they had waited until next year for the new generation to begin. Before the announcement of S/V, I was already fully booked regarding the games I have planned to play on my Switch this year. In fact, I was happy about BOTW2 getting delayed until next year since I wouldn't have had time to play it until later if it had been released this year.
I have never really been a fan of the yearly releases for main series Pokémon games, for that matter. I think they could wait a little longer between each release, like a year and a half or something. Or release additional content for games that already exist instead of a new game, like they did with the S/S DLC. As for being burnt out on Pokémon, I started feeling that way already during Gen 7 and it started for real during Gen 8, despite the fact that I have only bought 2 of the main series games for the Switch. Speaking of which, I guess that my enthusiasm for Pokémon games on the Switch isn't as high as for previous console generations as I have been skipping some games completely, which never happened in the past.
I am looking forward to S/V, but their upcoming release is making me feel stressed rather than excited. I realize that it is partly my own fault for wanting to play so many games in a short time span, but I felt like that a little even before S/V were announced and they did not exactly make things better.
I read through the discussion about Volo and I decided to add some short thoughts on that as well. If I hadn't gotten spoiled on Volo being the antagonist, I would not have seen it coming at all. I think he was a really good twist villain. I haven't played a whole lot of JRPGs outside of Pokémon and I am often pretty bad at figuring out plot twists in stories, both in games and in books (might be one reason as for why I like reading so much), so that was something I liked about him and the story in L:A.
As for the Volo battle, I thought it was okay. I can't say I liked it, but that's partly because I don't like the changes to the battle system in L:A. It is the first game in the main series where I don't enjoy Pokémon battles, and that's not a good thing at all. Before facing Volo, I had grinded a lot. IIRC I had trained one of my teams to level 75 before I battled him, giving me a rather easy victory. If I had been battling Volo in a game with the good, traditional battle system, I would probably have liked it better and I might not have overleveled at all in order to make it a bit more challenging and enjoyable.
Guess I should add an unpopular opinion of my own, also about L:A. I don't think the game is as great as many other Pokémon fans make it out to be. I liked it, but it has a quite large amount of flaws which drag down the gameplay experience for me. If I were to rank the Pokémon games, L:A would be somewhere in the middle, not at the top. I really disagree with it being the flawless masterpiece that many other fans make it out to be, it is definitely not my dream Pokémon game and I actually liked Sword better. But at the same time, I don't think L:A is the utter garbage that other fans make it out to be. I think it is quite good (just not that good) and fun to play. But still, it could have been so much better. On the whole, L:A has overtaken S/M as my new least favorite main series game in 3D. And to end this with an ultra-unpopular opinion: I still think X/Y are still the best main series games in 3D.
I have some more unpopular opinions about L:A, but I'll save them for another time.
Legends Arceus is far from flawless, but I'd still take it over any other Pokemon game on the Switch, and especially over any other Sinnoh game any day of the week. Platinum was solid overall, and its best moments are some of the best in the series, but generally still felt incredibly slow and poorly paced. Sword/Shield were propped up exponentially by the DLC, but even then, it was basically just a $30 price tag for two more glorified Wild Areas. And to hell with Diamond/Pearl, BDSP, and LGPE.
I will say that one thing I wasn't a huge fan of were noble battles. I like the idea of shaking up the typical battle formula or having a new type of battle, but I don't think this was the way to do it. Most of them basically amount to just dodging attacks or throwing balms. But the time it takes for you to dodge an attack and aim your next throw means you'll probably only get to throw about 3 balms at most in between attacks. And considering it takes somewhere around 50 or so to calm them (by rough estimate, at least), these battles ultimately just end up becoming a test of patience more than anything else.
I will say that one thing I wasn't a huge fan of were noble battles. I like the idea of shaking up the typical battle formula or having a new type of battle, but I don't think this was the way to do it. Most of them basically amount to just dodging attacks or throwing balms. But the time it takes for you to dodge an attack and aim your next throw means you'll probably only get to throw about 3 balms at most in between attacks. And considering it takes somewhere around 50 or so to calm them (by rough estimate, at least), these battles ultimately just end up becoming a test of patience more than anything else.
I dunno what to think, I was very on the fence about Gen 9 coming this year, that Legends Arceus could get more support or add a competitiveñy oriented Gen 8 game that has all the mons to shake the meta and buy time. But what's done is done already...
I'm not even excited for SCVI, or have the need to follow some attention seeking leaker. I'm just waiting for it to be done.
I'm not even excited for SCVI, or have the need to follow some attention seeking leaker. I'm just waiting for it to be done.
I am a bit on the fence for Scarlet and Violet coming out this year, since I think it is a bit too close to Legends Arceus and BDSP. I am fine with BDSP and Legends Arceus coming out near one another since they are sorta like sibling games and play differently enough from one another to feel distinct. However, Scarlet and Violet coming out so soon after them does feel like Gamefreak is releasing too many games at once.
That being said, I do wanna transition to a new competitive format since we've been playing SwSh formats for the last 2 years. I thought BDSP would be a refreshing change of pace, and it was for a brief period, but the de-powercrept metagame and a lot of Pokemon losing old options they had sorta rubs me the wrong way.
I am also hoping that GF does improve the online options. I actually have had a lot more fun playing SwSh and BDSP online than I have with USUM, but compared to Smash, the lack of options for battling just feel weird. Why do I need to select premade rulesets instead of customizing details like the Timer, Item Clause, Dynamax etc manually? Sword and Shield also seem to place a greater emphasis on online battling, so why remove the ability to save replays? I am hoping these changes were just an experiment gone wrong and GF listens to feedback to change them in Scarlet and Violet (which they seem to have done for other features like Pokemon Models). But I am getting off-topic.
Its kind of weird. Normally, I am not a fan of yearly releases for games because I think the game would benefit more from more dev time, but during these Pokemon "drought" periods (like between 2014 - 2016) I would rather have the game come sooner than later. Might just be a natural reaction or it could be hype, idk.
As for PR disasters, the best way to ignore it is just avoid social media sites like this, Twitter, Youtube, etc. which is easier said than done admittingly. Perhaps its just the fact I'm growing older and more aware or perhaps there has been a shift in the way people talk online, but something I have begun to notice more and more is that in order to generate drama, people will hang on to the barest thread and pull it as hard as possible to get likes, views, clout, etc.
Welcome to the World of Capitalism! Seriously speaking, I'm definitely disappointed that SV were announced so soon after Legends. I really enjoyed Legends, to me its the game that got me interested in Pokémon games again after the disappointment that was SwSh and skipping over BDSP. This isn’t the first time they have done this, XY were announced three months after BW2 in the west, but that was only in the west. I guess the TPC's avarice ( Yes, I think it is safe to call TPC greedy after the abomination of siding with Tencent and creating Pokémon UNITE ) has led them to realize that not only do the games themselves are incredibly lucrative, but the merchandise itself is even more lucrative; and since People will buy Pokémon games regardless of quality, the games need to come out yearly to maximize profits, even if it comes at the cost of the employee's mental and physical health ( In case you did not notice, I'm anti-Capitalism and will stop myself before I go write an essay ) and the quality and innovation of the games.
Last edited:
I ask this as a legitimate question, not a rhetorical one - how do you explain the stretch from 2008-2012? There were four main series games produced during this four year period - Pt, HGSS, BW, B2W2. Those might be the four best games in the series (though I think Emerald deserves consideration).
Was the move to 3D that much of a chore for GF that quality was compromised so badly? The pressure that comes from a yearly release seems like more of an excuse than an explanation for a company of GF's size, given their resources. Once upon a time, yearly releases did nothing to stop the quality of games GF was churning out during the Golden Age of 2008-2012. I just have a hard time believing that that's the root cause of the problem now.
And I would imagine the pressure of 3D rendition would just be proportionate to the time in which such games are being produced. I don't see other game franchises like Dragon Quest struggling with the shift to 3D.
Agree with this generally. One of the things I love about Pokémon (which I believe Ironmage made a comment about once upon a time) was the symmetry of boss battles compared to other JRPG series. I like the idea that it's Blue's six versus your six, or Cynthia's six versus your six which give the games a more immersive feel, rather than the typical "slay the dragon" OP boss versus a tiny little earthling like yourself in some bloated David vs. Goliath affair. As such, I wasn't a fan of the Volo fight for obvious reasons which broke the symmetry of a normal Pokémon boss fight.
As for the gameplay itself, not the biggest fan of the heavy shift towards crafting and catching over battling, which I always thought highlighted the core, borderline addictive strength of Pokémon's signature gameplay. Removing that clear, battle-centric sense of progression removes to me what makes Pokémon's gameplay stand out amongst other JRPGs and allows it to maintain its niche. As much as I respect GF for taking the risk it did, if it really wants to go open-world there a metric ton of other game franchises that are way ahead of them in that department. Hopefully GF can refine that formula moving forward but I think the open-world space is a lot more saturated and competitive than the one Pokémon previously inhabited.
Last edited:
Eh? Legends is the one mainline Gen 8 game that most people like.
Considering Game Freak has never been particularly good at actually constructing their games, I can absolutely believe it. Game Freak spent 20 years refining their route layouts, their cutscene direction, etc, all these things that you do in the overworld. They gotta relearn all that (especially the cutscene direction) in 3D.
Thankfully, if the Slow Start Theory is accurate, this upcoming gen or the one after is going to be when it clicks for Game Freak.
While the symmetry of Pokemon battles is indeed one of its strongest aspects, I dunno. I like it when they bend the symmetry a little for climactic fights. It helps those fights stand out. Though ending the game with a no-frills battle against a well-built team of six is probably still the best way to cap off league-centered plots.
Siggu has a deep-seated hatred of anything remotely open world and projects it onto everyone else whenever the topic comes up. Don't pay him any mind.
I actually have an opinion of my own about this, and that's the fact that what we fans view as "the glory days of Pokémon" is always changing. We saw this during the heart of the 3DS era, when the DS games were rising in popularity, sure, but the third generation games were also at their most popular point to date. I think Game Freak knows about this trend, which is why ORAS coming out in Generation 6 is such a good fit. Just to get the discussion rolling, here's what I'd say "the best Pokémon games were according to the fanbase during every time period as of Gen 3.
Early 2000s: The resetting brought with Ruby & Sapphire (and Colloseum, I suppose) quickly gave people a yearning for the days of Kanto
Mid 2000s: With Kanto, Hoenn, and Orre all being covered by current entries, interest in the Johto region increased again
Late 2000s: Similar to the last period, with Johto interest at an all-time high as well the start of consistent increase of GameCube interest
Early 2010s: Hardcore Gen 5 fans may remember this as the "Hoenn Confirmed" era
Mid 2010s: General interest in the Gen 4 games increased this time (people also started wondering what happened to the Ranger series)
Late 2010s: 20th anniversary hype helped out Kanto quite a bit for newer fans, and Sinnoh only got more popular too
Early 2020s: Where we are now, the general consensus is that Johto, Hoenn (lack of ORAS on Switch), and Unova need the most attention
See the pattern here? We're going to see this until the end of time, and that's why Pokémon fans will always buy remakes even if they turn out like ILCA-inspired garbage along the lines of BDSP.
This is also true. Every Pokemon game sucks up until the point where the people who grew up with it become old enough to enter the discourse, when suddenly it's always been amazing.
Ok so in contrast to what Wukong said, honest to god I think it's a crying shame that villains in Pokemon don't flat-out cheat more often. You are not convincing me for a nanosecond that Ghetsis or Lysandre would play fair, and in a series that already struggles to make cool villains as is it would really do miles to help them stand out.
Ye pretty much. Also to elaborate on some of the external factors I mentioned, covid neutered VGC pretty mightily from what I've seen and heard as well as getting everyone down for obvious reasons, and just the general state of fandom discourse saw some pretty pathetically low lows. PLA def ain't a contributor tho, quite the opposite: Can you imagine if our most recent game was BDSP? The doomium going into SV would be off the charts. Really in general the problem for me isn't overexposure, at least I don't think, just that the exposure I got was far less ideal far too often.
Ye pretty much. Also to elaborate on some of the external factors I mentioned, covid neutered VGC pretty mightily from what I've seen and heard as well as getting everyone down for obvious reasons, and just the general state of fandom discourse saw some pretty pathetically low lows. PLA def ain't a contributor tho, quite the opposite: Can you imagine if our most recent game was BDSP? The doomium going into SV would be off the charts. Really in general the problem for me isn't overexposure, at least I don't think, just that the exposure I got was far less ideal far too often.
Give people about a decade, I guarantee they'll start acting like SwSh and BDSP are the greatest things since sliced bread. Starting with 1996, here's what I'd say "the fanbase's favorite region" was by the end of every year. I'll be listing up to three regions per year, core series only for the sake of this list. One quick mention before I start; "Kanto" is referring to Kanto-only games, not the Johto postgame.
1996: They had no choice
1997: They had no choice
1998: They had no choice
1999: Kanto
2000: Kanto
2001: Kanto
2002: Kanto, Johto
2003: Kanto, Johto
2004: Johto
2005: Johto
2006: Johto, Hoenn
2007: Johto, Hoenn
2008: Johto, Hoenn
2009: Kanto, Hoenn
2010: Kanto, Hoenn
2011: Kanto, Hoenn
2012: Kanto, Hoenn
2013: Kanto, Hoenn, Sinnoh
2014: Kanto, Johto, Sinnoh
2015: Kanto, Johto, Sinnoh
2016: Johto, Sinnoh, Unova
2017: Sinnoh, Unova, Kalos
2018: Sinnoh, Unova, Kalos
2019: Sinnoh, Unova, Kalos
2020: Sinnoh, Unova, Kalos
2021: Hoenn, Unova, Kalos
2022 (ongoing): Hoenn, Unova, Kalos
The pattern to take away from this is that regions that haven't been visited in a while in any way, shape, or form (including Virtual Console/NSO ports) will grow more and more popular, due to the natural consumer reaction of comparing newer products to older ones of the same kind. Given the patterns and how well Nintendo and Game Freak have kept an eye on this pattern over time, I believe this to serve as surefire evidence that Unova is the most popular "old region" at the current moment and should be the next region in line to receive a remake as a response to this consumer demand.
Last edited:
B2W2 Ghetsis kinda cheated by using a full team of six and a fused Kyurem, though presumably for technical reasons his fight is broken up into two parts.
I guess one of the few advantages of continuously building on top of Gen 3's battle engine is that unlike what happened with the overworld design, Game Freak never had to start from scratch, so they were free to continue pushing the system in weird directions. Triple battles, rotation battles, hoard battles, totems, Mother Beast, battle royales, raid battles, cutscene battles, Klara and Avery. For all people wanna say Game Freak has regressed, every single generation they get better at adapting the battle system to the story, with gens 7 and 8 being by far the best on this front.
Last edited:
It's been a long time since I've seen BW's climax, but Ghetsis tries to cheat by coming after you right after you defeat N, but either N or Cheren (like I said, it's been a while) heals your team, right?
As for Lysandre, I also don't remember a lot of XY's character exposition for him, but he doesn't strike me as someone who would cheat against the player, unless he's just that far gone into misanthropy that he doesn't care anymore. He feels like he has standards (or maybe that's just Pokémon Masters talking, lol).
Otherwise agree with the "villains should cheat more" angle.
That's a good point. Which is maybe why I would prefer if Pokémon games didn't end with a villain fight and embedded it somewhere towards the end. I was never a fan of the Ghetsis fight thematically, but you're absolutely right, he's not a character where it makes sense for him to be fighting fair. On the other hand, I could see someone like Cyrus fighting fair. Maybe to prove to himself that he's worthy of being the ruler of this new world that he longs for.
Even still, I prefer an even, symmetric fight against a champion like Blue, Steven, or Cynthia to an over the top fight against a villain. To me, Pokémon's core strength has always been its battle-centric gameplay. It's never been know for amazing stories. If it really wants to compete in that space there are plenty of JRPGs that do that way better.
I'd personally take Platinum and Sword over L:A, but to each their own.
I agree, I was not very fond of the noble battles either. More about that later in this post, there are other things to talk about first.
From an economic point of view, I can understand that they release a new game every year. TPC is a company, and the goal for any company is to make money. Since the Pokémon games always sell very well, it is no mystery that they release a new game every year. But that does not change the fact that it can be annoying and stressful for us players to get a new game every year. I was not a big fan of when they did the same thing with X/Y being announced soon after B2/W2, it made me very disappointed back when it happened. Though it feels worse now with the short gap between L:A and S/V. There's more that can be said about this, but I'll stop here since I don't want this discussion to get too political.
Not sure, but I have some ideas. First of all, the Golden Age for me personally is 2011-2014, back when B/W, B2/W2 and X/Y were the newest games (my three favorite entries in the series). There's also OR/AS, but I consider them to be the beginning of the Silver Age.
Now, to (try to) answer your question. I am not a game developer, but my impression is that it is a lot harder and more time-consuming to develop a game in 3D compared to a sprite-based game in 2D. On a similar note, graphics has never been Game Freak's strongest suit. Especially not 3D graphics. There has been a lot of complaints about the graphics in L:A, and while they don't bother me all that much personally (more about that later), there's no denying that the game could have been a lot better graphically. I believe that it takes a lot more time to develop games in 3D than in 2D, so developing a 3D game in the same time as it takes for a 2D game means that corners have to be cut somewhere, either in gameplay, content, graphics or something else. I think all of the 3D games so far have been lacking in some aspects, but which one(s) vary from game to game. Now, this might not necessarily be because of the games being in 3D, but it feels like that at least.
Another thing is that the DS games were built on already existing games more than the 3D games. Platinum was clearly made with D/P as a base, meaning that they already had 80-90% of the game done. HG/SS required them to make a different region on the DS, but they already had the map ready from G/S/C. B/W required a new map, but B2/W2 re-used a lot of it. So they only really had to make one completely "new" game from these four.
In comparison, it was different for the 3D era. X/Y, S/M, S/S and L:A all required new maps. OR/AS and BD/SP were recreations of old maps, while US/UM was just built upon S/M. Which means that the 3D era so far has required four completely new maps, compared to just two for the DS era (D/P and B/W).
And I think the quality of the games wasn't always super great during the DS era either (you already know what I think about HG/SS, the others were fine though). In comparison, I don't think the 3DS era had any game that was quite as bad as HG/SS. Can't really speak for the Switch era as I haven't played either LGP/E or BD/SP, but I think both S/S and L:A were fine if not the very best.
I'm not so sure about the size of GF either. A quick search gives me that they have 167 employees. Let's compare this to some other second-party developers for Nintendo:
Monolith Soft: 275
Intelligent Systems: 187
HAL Laboratory: 205
Compared to these three, Game Freak has fewer employees and are forced to create a new game every year, which the others don't need to as far as I'm aware.
Not sure if that was the answer you were looking for, but those are my thoughts. I should mention that I do not claim that all of this correct, it is mostly just my own theories and thoughts about this subject.
Same here. In the past, I liked how the Pokémon games were always fair* to the player, something most other RPGs I have played aren't. More about this further down.
*not sure if this is the correct term, it might be more correct to say "balanced" or "approachable", but this is what I'm going with.
Mostly agree. I had no issue with the focus on crafting or catching, but I really dislike the changes to the battle system. It was never broken, there was no need to "fix" it. I think most of the changes made it more based on luck than strategy, which I do not approve of. I always liked the traditional battle system since it offered a lot of room for strategy, which has always been one of the things I like the most about Pokémon. I don't understand why they had to change that in L:A, they could just have kept the traditional battle system while also focusing on the other things they introduced in the game.
Yes. I was very active in the fandom during the Gen 5 and early Gen 6 days, I remember seeing people demanding Hoenn remakes everywhere. Crazy to think that it has been 10 years already.
Ghetsis uses an underleveled Hydreigon. That is on the border of cheating if you ask me.
On the topic of opponents cheating, I think Klara/Avery did this the very best. They cheat using game mechanics, which is excellent. If they keep the concept of cheating characters, I hope we can see more of this in the future.
I agree. While I think some Pokémon games have good stories, and while B/W are some of my favorite Pokémon games, story has never been the main thing I care about. The story has never been the main reason as for why I love B/W. And as you say, there are many other games out there with considerably better stories. When it comes to Pokémon, I will always take gameplay before story. That is why I like X/Y and US/UM better than S/M, for instance. S/M has a great story but some quite big issues when it comes to gameplay.
...
Now, to some more unpopular opinions. I mentioned some of them earlier in this post, now it is time for a longer explanation.
I wasn't very fond of the Noble battles in L:A. I think this is unpopular because it is an opinion I don't see very often, if ever (I don't think I have seen it anywhere before PokePoindexter posted it earlier in this thread). To me, it feels like Game Freak were trying to emulate the boss battles in other action games like Zelda and Metroid, but the overall execution for the Noble battles is much worse. The Nobles get more and better moves with every new one, but the player is stuck with dodge, throw and run throughout the entire game. Basically, the Nobles improve while you don't, making the battles against them feel very unfair. Even worse, you don't even have access to basic moves like jumping or shielding, nor can you throw many different items, only balms and Poké Balls.
I thought the three basic moves you have were okay for Kleavor and Lilligant, but it became frustrating for Arcanine and every Noble battle after it. In comparison, the Zelda and Metroid games give you access to more items and moves the further you get. I played through Metroid Dread and the Switch remake of Link's Awakening a few months ago, and I think they handled their boss battles so much better than the Noble battles in L:A, it is almost ridiculous how much worse L:A did in this aspect.
On a similar note, I think the health indicator for the player character is terrible. It reminded me of the one in Mirror's Edge, and that's cool, but L:A is an action RPG focused on exploration, not a fast-paced first person platformer with shooting elements. I don't understand why they just couldn't have a health bar for the player like for the Pokémon, or something like the hearts in Zelda or energy tanks in Metroid. I really can't forgive L:A for failing at this and many other things that it got wrong. It is one thing to do a mistake the first time, but when you screw up on something as simple as a good health bar (which other games got right back in the 80s), then it is just plain unacceptable.
I would kind of have liked to see some way to heal the player as well. You can't heal your Pokémon, why not yourself? Not sure about it though. Some way to increase your own health similar to how you get more hearts in Zelda or more energy in Metroid would have been cool as well, but I'm not sure here either. It felt to me like the health for the Nobles did not increase with each battle, so maybe it was a good thing that it wasn't possible to increase it for the player since that would make it unfair in the player's favor. Not sure though.
Overall, I wasn't a fan of the Noble battles. They were difficult and challenging but for all the wrong reasons. There is no way I am ever doing any post-game rematches against them (which I don't have to either, thankfully). If there are more Legends games in the future, they need to either improve upon the Noble fights and do them right, or not include them at all.
I might as well post my other unpopular opinions about L:A while I'm at it, just to get it all out of the way.
First, something positive. I have seen many complaints about the graphics of the game, but I disagree. I think the game actually looks pretty good, even beautiful in some instances. Many areas look great, and I love the Pokémon models. Granted, the game could have been a lot better graphically, I know from experience through playing other games that the Switch is capable of much better graphics. But still, I think the graphics were fine. For all the issues I have with the game, the graphics is not one of them. And as said earlier, graphics (and especially 3D graphics) is something Game Freak has never been particularly good at.
Another unpopular opinion I have about L:A is that I didn't find the world to be empty. It felt like there were always something to be found behind every new corner, be it a Pokémon, an item or something else. If anything, I often wished that the game was emptier when I played it. Getting targeted by aggressive wild Pokémon almost everywhere was very annoying. Though that's more because there is no way to turn of their aggro (which is a very bad thing IMO), but that's for a different discussion.
Finally, on to something that isn't only about L:A. I dislike how Pokémon games have gotten unfair in recent generations. It started in Gen 7, then it continued in Gen 8. In Gen 1-6, you did for the most part always have the same opportunities as your opponent, no matter the situation. For the most part, you always had access to the same Pokémon, items, moves and abilities as the opponent. There are some exceptions to this, but most of them are minor IMO.
But starting with Gen 7, this changed. Suddenly, opponents could have unfair advantages over you. Some examples are the Totem fights and Ultra Necrozma in Gen 7, where the opponent gets a stat boost at the start of the battle and/or are able to call an ally for help, while you can only have one Pokémon out on the battlefield. The same goes for the SOS mechanics in Gen 7 which I strongly dislike, and how opponents can gang up on you in L:A while you can only ever have one Pokémon out to fight them. There's also the Max Raid battles in S/S and the Noble battles in L:A as I talked about above. The changed battle mechanics in L:A also allow opponents to get unfair advantages over you (or the other way around, though that felt like it happened considerably less often when I played the game). Overall, I am not a fan of how the Pokémon games have gotten unfair from Gen 7 and on, it is something I strongly disapprove of. I always liked the more fair battles in Gen 1-6 and I wish that had been kept, there was no need to change it. Thankfully most regular battles are still fair (except for in L:A), but I don't really like how many of the boss battles are unfair nowadays.
No amount of cheating would help a pathetic Pokémon team composition by a long shot - you see what happened to RSE Archie / Maxie and the Gen 2 Team Rocket in general - but it would definitely help giving more identity to individual villains.
Oh, I don’t paint PLA as a bad thing; the reason I called it a tough-act-to-follow is that it have a very, very positive reception from fans at release, something only SM managed to get among the 2010s mainline Pokémon games. What we got before PLA within the same generation, though, certainly soured expectations to a fault.
As I said, I hope SV doesn’t repeat too many of the same mistakes of what SWSH and PLA commited, otherwise it might end up being compared as less good than PLA.