Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation III

[NyaChan]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

I can't speak for the majority of gen 3 haters, but from personal opinion, and perhaps the majority of gen 3 haters, it isn't Gen 3 I hate, it's Hoenn I hate.

This. I don't think I could put it any simpler. I've played and beaten both Sapphire and Emerald (though the former I have barely any recollection of, and probably for good reason), though I played both well after their release (I didn't care about sapphire until FRLG were out).

And you know what? This has nothing to do with nostalgia or whatever, it's that I just DON'T LIKE HOENN. I can compare it to older generations all I want, but I don't need to compare it to them for some major reasons I hate it. Sure, I can use it for more reason to dislike it, but I don't have to. I know I've said this all before, but whatever.

1. The Pokémon are just too odd for me. Not to mention some weird lines that until you actually evolve the pokémon or look it up, they don't look like they are part of the same evo line (*stares at trapinch*) Sue me, I liked the simplistic pokémon of gen1/2.
2. The Rival(s) failed in every aspect. I mean, I LIKE Jun/Barry and actually don't really like rivals like Silver who act as though they'll punch your face in every time they see you, but Wally and Yuuki/Brenden(/Haruka/May) are just fail rivals, simple as that. The rival does HAVE to be mean to push me to get stronger and better than them, but it would help if at least one of those idiots had actually seemed to care about being better than me.
3. Placement of some pokémon early on. FIRE TYPES AURGH. WHAT possessed GF to put all the fire types that would help beat Wattson RIGHT BEHIND those rock?! I mean, had Wattson been the fourth leader or a few fire types put before the rocks, I wouldn't have been royally annoyed.
4. Speaking of which, GRINDING. It's one thing to have some grinding needed to have the upper hand, but when the game practically forces me to grind because either the level gap is significant or that I can't super effective anything, I get annoyed. I HATE being forced to grind, heck in general I hate grinding. Early game required you to grind because there wasn't enough stuff they had to get you to fight, mid-game was okay because then the storyline had kicked in and the fights would gradually level you to where you would need to be, but late-game the story wrapped up and left you with nothing to do but grind for the E4.
5. Music, save for ONE track, the dive music. Everything else was pretty bad IMO, and I preferred to put something on from my computer and turn the volume off on my game.
6. The stupid pokénav. STOP. CALLING. ME. AURGH. I wouldn't have cared if I wasn't forced to answer every stupid call.
7. The acro/mach bike was pointless and unnecessary. There was no point to it, just take out the acro bike and everything would have been the same anyways.

Hoenn was HORRIBLE. That is MY OPINION (if this isn't OBVIOUS =__=), and I really don't care if you want to try and change it because you can't. Gen3 was pretty bad in general, though Hoenn is 100% why I hate it. It was horrible to play through, and just in general a bad region. While what they brought to the game structure is FINE, I don't like Hoenn because of the pokémon, the characters, and the story as well as the horrid set up of the region. I mean, I love the ocean IRL, but Hoenn was just too much. It's not fun when you see your character on the black blob thing that's representing your pokémon with nothing but the ocean around you for quite a while. =3= There should at LEAST be trainers, not an endless sea!

I didn't even care for the non-backwards-compatible thing. What made me hate Hoenn was the Hoenn adventure itself.

 

[Fig]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Scott, you're going from "impressions". And you're listing Serebii for the "old community". Serebii was irrelevant back in 2000 - Pokemasters, UPNm Old Bulbagarden is where the action was back in the early GSC (after the Japanese release, before the US release, back when everyone and their sister used certain toys I can't mention) days.

The simple fact is, the community went from supporting a highly competitive two/three-forum scenario in the early GSC release era (depending on who was having trouble paying for their server at that point) to having exactly one (Serebii) with no room for competition by the RSE era. Bulbagarden may have had an established community, but it was a small one compared to the RBYGSC ones.

4th Gen brought the situation back to two very large website able to coexist in the community (and talk about established communities all you want; what I can tell you is that the activity level on Bulbagarden doubled - literally - between the year prior to the Japan release of DP and the year following its US release). That's not an "impression", that's actual statistics which I just checked in the Bulbagarden database.

I can also point out the fact that your vaulted "active" 2005 had about 1200 new members...which is about as many new members we got in March this year. 2004, we got 400-ish new members...which is less than our monthly average in 2009 or 2010.

 

[Battaman]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

I enjoyed it back then, but when replaying it now, it's not because it's fun, it's because I need an extra Master Ball or an extra Regi. Also that there were just as much to do post-league than in gen 1. I never played Emerald, but Ruby and Sapphire just don't make it, I never kept a save file once the legends were caught, I restarted in the lack of anything to do, and after a while I left Pokemon and didn't return until a friend of mine bought me a (fake, we learned later) FireRed.

Gen 3 just don't ain't that special to me, I just can't love it.

 

[Cinvinci]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Secret bases, anyone? They were a great addition, in my opinion. It was shocking to see them ruined in 4th Gen.

Also, gotta love Acro bike.

 

[SNaG]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Generation III was a very good gen in my opinion. While it isn't the best, also in my opinion, it introduced the staple concepts of Natures and Abilities, both of which impact battling today. Competitive Battling became so much more... diverse because of those two simple concepts.

I liked Sapphire, but I didn't feel too much substance after the game was completed. That has much to do with me not having a Link Cable and not being able to get the National Pokédex, but also... There's not much motivation. In my opinion (yet again) the Battle Tower in Crystal, while innovative, got dull very quickly, and its quality did not improve in Sapphire. However, Emerald was a vast improvement, and to this day, remains one of my most favorite games. Somewhat meatier story line, the Battle Frontier, fighting Steven as an added challenge... That was the crown jewel of Generation III.

Some of the Pokémon designs were very unoriginal. I read an earlier post criticizing Beautifly, and I don't really think I need to elaborate. But Game Freak could have put some more effort in making Feebas's design a LITTLE different from Magikarp's, as well as make Salamence's design look less "stereotypically cool."

For the most part, however, Generation III was a roaring success. Despite a little lack of originality in some of the Pokémon, the revamped battle system, and very good music, show its improvements over Generation II and doesn't deserve to be criticized.

 

[Misty]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

You know, it's interesting - I was discussing Pokemon with a friend of mine the other day, and I went and pulled up a big image showing all the Pokemon. As I was looking at it, I realized something - the Hoenn Pokemon are actually pretty cool. They have a kind of simple elegance that I think is actually RBY-ish (although this doesn't apply to the legendaries, which are, on the whole, pretty meh). I find this especially true when compared to Gen IV - the Pokemon in Gen IV are too... well, weird (strangely, excepting the legendaries again).

I think the major problem with Gen III is what I call the "Half a Game Syndrome" - namely that RS simply don't stand on their own as respectable games. Emerald makes the game work, but I found it to be "too little, too late". Granted, maybe that was just me.

 

[Our Wasted Years]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

I believe that the Generation III games deserves more respect than they usually get

lol people care about worthless and unimportant things too much.

 

[The Hoenn Kid]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Secret bases, anyone? They were a great addition, in my opinion. It was shocking to see them ruined in 4th Gen.

Also, gotta love Acro bike.

Agreed. With Secret Bases, Mixing Records and quite a lot of friends who had Ruby and Sapphire, I had a really fun time after the Elite 4 battling friends again and again.

 

[evkl]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

The issue isn't that RS had no features, it's that they weren't--fundamentally--as good as Crystal. So when you don't beat a gaming experience like that, it's basically a failed generation.

 

[Fig]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

You know, it's interesting - I was discussing Pokemon with a friend of mine the other day, and I went and pulled up a big image showing all the Pokemon. As I was looking at it, I realized something - the Hoenn Pokemon are actually pretty cool. They have a kind of simple elegance that I think is actually RBY-ish (although this doesn't apply to the legendaries, which are, on the whole, pretty meh). I find this especially true when compared to Gen IV - the Pokemon in Gen IV are too... well, weird (strangely, excepting the legendaries again).

I think the major problem with Gen III is what I call the "Half a Game Syndrome" - namely that RS simply don't stand on their own as respectable games. Emerald makes the game work, but I found it to be "too little, too late". Granted, maybe that was just me.

Yeah, no. evkl and I were chatting earlier, and that was largely the same conclusion we generally looked at.Gen III had great elements, but the way they came together was just...lacking. Espêcially after Crystal, which may have been weaker feature-wise (we don't altogether agree), but did a much better job taking the shopping list of features and turning them into a fulfilling game experience.

And that's worrisome, after a way, because Platinum has set the bar very high, and it will take a very good showing by Black and White - not just cool new concepts and graphics, but a great setting, plot, and a fulfilling gameplay experience - to avoid a Gen V disappointment.

 

[Shinx3000]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Honestly, playing through HGSS and recalling what Hoenn was like, I prefer Hoenn so far. Hoenn had variety of different locations that didn't look the same, much of the areas in Johto just look the same (more routes) with Hoenn you could go to different places and see something different, heck even water routes that were not connected to eachother were different.

Secret bases, anyone? They were a great addition, in my opinion. It was shocking to see them ruined in 4th Gen.

Secret bases were good, I liked how you could decorate them, the problem I had was that they were limited, but I am not sure what you could do to make them any better.

I read at the time RS came out that people didn't like the pokemon so much, some said they were ripoffs such as Lairon/Aggron being a rip of Rhyhorn/Rhydon, but they were different (somewhat similar in looks, but different) but I like them.

One thing I liked was that you could go to safari zone and a lot of the pokemon in there were not also outside the safari zone (like in Gen IV where a lot of pokemon you find in great marsh are on other routes, such as wooper, making great marsh not very useful except for the few harder to find pokemon like exggutor or kangashkan.)

I think the games were more limited than GSC and one reason why people liked Gen II better, more to do with added Kanto, after you beat E4 in RS, very little to do except get pokemon, contests and battle tower (it was annoying having to have pokemon at either lv50 or 100 to battle, glad Gen IV lowered the level if over 50 so you didn't have to stick with your pokemon being lv50 to challange BT)

Wondering, did anyone else try and do the things in rumors at the time? Such as fish 50 times with super rod inside Sootopolis (where you use dive in the dark water area) and get a shiny garaydos or wait 100 weeks and fly to space to get Jirachi (or get a wish tag and use it on the white rock outside the space center, which you couldn't do as there is no item called a wish tag the NPC beside it just mentions one)

I wonder if a remake came and was done right, added more features, overhauled graphics and music/ battles etc.. for Gen V style, and merged the Emerald storyline and mixed it with the first Gen V games story (as they could be on same time line)...would this change the views of those that didn't like RS?

 

[Fig]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

I don't think many people tried. Mostly because most of the old fans got burned out of that sort of rumor trying to get Pikablu or Nidogod

 

[PDL]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

The main reason why I think Gen III gets flack is because:

A. Fans of something feel the need to bash another thing regardless of the quality of either product. This doesn't only apply with games, but everything else. TV shows, soda, countries, religions... I can go on.

It seems to be an inherent part of fanboy and fantaticism. To prove the suprieority of Product A, they need to bash Product B for no reason.

B. People absolutely hated the cut-off point Gen III brought around. They couldn't bring any of their favourite monsters from their Gen I or Gen II games. Technically this balance issue was present in the Gen II games where you can get your Gen I mons (which were most likely stronger) and sweep the rest of the game with them and them alone. Gen III didn't allow this since Ruby and Sapphire were completely incompatable with all the previous games. Worst of all was that most of the older Pokémon weren't even available in-game... At first. Although they were programmed into the game so they theoretically be brought in and used at some point.

It wasn't until Colosseum, Fire Red and Leaf Green that the rest were offically released and everyone could use their old favorites again. This had an effect that was probably intented by Game Freak: Your new monsters were just as strong as the old favorites and everyone was at a roughly even level.

 

[acetrainer]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Generation 3 was the best and you know it so STHU.

You is so funny! har Har HAr HAR!

Gen III got some good pokemon and some that ain't good. All Gens are criticized and they are all opinions. There is no gen that is factually "better" than the others.

I don't have much to say about Gen 3 because I lost interest in pokemon after Gen II and came back for Gen IV. I played the Gen 3 games long after they came out and thought they were pretty good overall.

 

[Orion-Sama]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Good article. It mentioned the one aspect that makes 3rd Generation stand out: It was bold. They were too scaredy to try anything new in Generation 2, to the point they didn't even bother to showcase the new Pokémon properly. In that regard, I vastly preferred the way Generation 3 did things, as the game did allow me to use new Pokémon, instead of shoving previous Generations everywhere once again.

I wonder what did Crystal have that RS didn't. Oh, you mean all those overhyped features that ultimately add nothing to the game experience? Yeah, I thought so. Pokémon animation is... yeah, what's the benefit of having it? It makes Pokémon feel "alive"? lol. Natures did that much better, giving every individual Pokémon a personality.

Day and night? Seeing how poorly utilized it was up to Platinum, I'm glad 3rd Generation didn't even bother. I'm not just talking about the graphics. I refer to the poor use of "different Pokémon appear in different times of the day". Let's not forget the time constraints it forces on you. Nice feature, but was 3rd Generation bad for lacking it? Not in the slightest. I'm glad they got rid of it until they could do it right.

Post-game content? Here's a funny case. I'd rather have nothing to do after the Elite Four if the post-game content is a total chore and a total bore, and as far as I'm concerned, that was the case with GSC/HGSS Kanto. A portion with no traces of plot, dragged on, boring as hell, that has no overall purpose other than show you Kanto 3 years later. Whoop dee doo. Diamond, Pearl and Platinum had a proper post-game quest, that's involving enough but isn't completely boring. Same goes for FRLG. You had the whole Sevii Islands quest, which wasn't as engaging, but at least had a final, meaningful purpose, and didn't bore you. RS did suffer in this regard, and even Emerald has little post-game quests, but I still prefer to have little to none over excess of things to do that fail to motivate me to even get around them.

The other "lost" features are pathetic, so I'm not going to bother with them. As it is... I'd rather have Hoenn and all the changes the 3rd Generation brought to the table, than have GSC MK-II. The changes in the system were needed, as well as the data allocation issues, so they were forced to make the previous games incompatible if they wanted the series to go on. No matter. They introduced a bunch of great Pokémon and I could finally get to use all of them instead of dealing with old crap for the second time. The plot felt less pathetic in my opinion, and I was happy to see two new Teams instead of Team Rocket again, which had a really laughable showcase in Generation 2. Plus, Legendaries played in the story for the first time, and I consider that a step forward.

Hoenn was beautiful, and though the water routes could get tedious, it beats yet another generic Region any day. The characters were nice as well, and so were the Pokémon and all the new add-ons. Even Contests were fun to do.

All in all, the 3rd Generation does get too much hate and for no good reason. Ultimately, I liked the direction taken in this Generation, and it's sad the 4th Generation didn't take too well after it, instead falling into a new comfort zone. But well, I can only hope the 5th Generation will try new things, the same way the 3rd Generation did.

 

[Magmortar123]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

I kinda agree with what this person said. Even though it isn't my fav, it introduced a lot of interesting and fun things.

 

[Faye Scarlet]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

1. The Pokémon are just too odd for me. Not to mention some weird lines that until you actually evolve the pokémon or look it up, they don't look like they are part of the same evo line (*stares at trapinch*) Sue me, I liked the simplistic pokémon of gen1/2.

Like Dragonair to Dragonite, right?

Hoenn does get a lot of unfair flack indeed. It's my favorite region. People complain about seeing too much Zigzagoon and Bidoof? Hah, never mind that they complained about Rattata and Pidgey before RS were released...

And really, did you expect to see even MORE all-Kanto Pokemon in a new region? It's why Johto is so weak. Where are all my Johto Pokemon? And how many of us had an all-Johto team in GSC?

 

[Lysandre]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

Here are what my problems were with Gen 3-

1. No animated sprites until Emerald. The very last game in the series had it on a much more primitive system, a downgrade was no excuse.
2. No GOOD Stadium battle game. Colosseum was an excellent game but it didn't try to be a Stadium game, which is wanted I wanted. This complaint still stands true today.
3. No backwards comparability. This doesn't bother me as much now, but as a child who would write fanfics about my all my Pokemon by name not being able to transfer Mewey Twoey over felt devastating.
4. I don't like IVs, it's stupid to have to recatch a Pokemon over and over again to get one with the best base stats by "luck". No way to see what the IVs even were was also annoying. I know I'll get flamed for this, but hear me out, I'm cool with the Steroid items that let you pop a certain amount of pills into your Pokemon to buff it up, but the whole "Whoops sorry your Steelix has weak base stats against the other guy with your exact same moveset sorry you lose" mindset REALLY pisses me off to this day. Pokemon always felt like Chess to me, and in Chess you don't throw back the pieces because they hidden numbers aren't good enough. This also messed up the semi-realistic bond some people felt to their Pokemon earlier.
5. NATURES. I have grown to stand this one, but the natures are just obnoxious, resetting for a single-time Pokemon and spending an hour to catch it only to find it doesn't either have good competitive stats or a good nature ONE HUNDRED TIMES until it works can get REALLY TEDIOUS and to a certain extent it relies as much on luck as it does skill. I'm okay with like, a few natures, one for each stat, but 20+ is just ridiculous.

That's actually about it. I loved Hoenn, the stories, the characters, the Pokemon were some of the best yet, but the core details of the engine really drove me to insanity after having such a tight grip on the mechanics of the originals. The lack of a good new Stadium game complaint still rings true today, though.

 

[Sombra29]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

I ...personally dislike this kind of editorials.The other one before felt like complaining about things you dont like and this one is complaining about complaining.

Anyway,Ill just say this in the "debate",whatever you disliked that gen or not,it still was one (if not the besT)selling game for the GBA.

In my eyes,GEN III will always have one big thing to be credited for,that it stablished the frandchize as one powerfull and almost-invencible one that will stay as an asset for Nintendo in the years to come.Even if it makes drastic changes,Gen III proved that ,if it is still a pokemon game,it will sell.

And really, did you expect to see even MORE all-Kanto Pokemon in a new region? It's why Johto is so weak. Where are all my Johto Pokemon? And how many of us had an all-Johto team in GSC?

If wasnt for the evolutions for some jotho pokemon intruduced in GEN IV My team wouldnt have been an all-jotho in the remakes.

 

[Fig]

Re: Generation III: Criticized too often?: Fan's response in defense of Generation II

I wonder what did Crystal have that RS didn't. Oh, you mean all those overhyped features that ultimately add nothing to the game experience?

I mean the part where the game isn't basically over (except for leveling pokemon, and leveling them some more) after you beat the Elite Four. Which is kind of a big difference in the gameplay experience, since one means the game consist of beating the Elite Four and nada, and the other means there's still a lot to be done afterward..

I also mean the part where the main plot and its villains felt like they had been written by six years old with less-than-a-shred of understanding of basic world realities. Like the part where even land animals need to drink, and where most animals, when in water, drown. Aqua and Magma apparently missed those memos...Having vilains whose master plan actually make sense (Like "We want Giovanni back, so let's do something flashy while at the same time telling him we want him to return". Or "This world sucks, to let's enslave pokemon with the ability to recreate it and do that" or "Hey, there's monies to be made of these pokemon, so let's!")

THAT is what Crystal had that Ruby and Sapphire dropped the ball on, big time, and both of them are defining features of good games.

I'm not saying that, feature wise, Ruby and Sapphire weren't solid. They were solid grocery list of features.

But they were half-done games.