Why do so many people hate gen III?

[DerMißingno]

It's interesting to me to see everyone complaining about the water routes. Out of all my complaints about third gen, the I really didn't mind the water routes at all. There are so many worse things about RS.

 

[pikachu200]

I don't really know maybe the starters didn't appeal to them or something or Ruby and Sapphire were too short or you had to read braille (blind people language) but personally I like it the battle themes were excellent especially the champion

 

[Shinx3000]

Gen III for me, introduced some of the important things that many like and find important:

If it was not for Gen III we would not have double battles - thank you pluse and minun!

Gave us the Battle Frontier

Natures - important for breeding for battling

103 new moves

Sablyeye - the first pokemon with no weakness

Tropious - the first grass/flying type

Blaizken - first fire/fighting type

Slaking - third highest base attack and if its ability is skill swapped, it can be quite impressive pokemon for a normal type

Absol - Highest attack of any non legendary

Wynaut - haveing a wobuffett evolved from this could give you more moves - charm and encore with Splash being a useless one. Plus its considered uber.

I know people complained about the lack of fire types, but what do you expect from a water route area?

 

[PDL]

Tropious - the first grass/flying type

Technically, this isn't true. Hoppip, Skiploom and Jumpluff are also Grass/Flying...

But they really aren't that useful when compared with Tropius. Probably one of the best HM slaves.

 

[DerMißingno]

Slaking - third highest base attack and if its ability is skill swapped, it can be quite impressive pokemon for a normal type

Absol - Highest attack of any non legendary

These two statements are contradictory.

 

[Sleet]

Not bothering to take closer looks and to do research is just laziness on the player's part then. It's also extremely lazy to not try new things.

Not everyone playing Pokémon is dedicated enough to do that. Or over the age of 10 for that matter. "Lazy" or not, there will be people who notice the similarities who do not research their Pokémon's entire potential movesets and base statistics. Many of those will feel cheated by "repeat" Pokémon. Whether or not they're not looking deep enough is irrelevant; their game experience is slightly less fun, and fun is what it's all about in the first place.

And as someone who likes Pokémon for more than just battle strategy, I feel somewhat cheated as well. It's not a huge deal to me, but regardless, I don't like it. Rather than having two Pokémon/evolution lines based on the exact same things but with somewhat different stats and moves, why couldn't they just make completely unique Pokémon?

 

[Psyburn]

Its interesting that every topic on a pokemon forum that says "why do people hate yadda yadda" end up with a million comments saying "idk I like w/e subject".

Rather than having two Pokémon/evolution lines based on the exact same things but with somewhat different stats and moves, why couldn't they just make completely unique Pokémon?

I doubt its that easy these days. Gen 4 prolly has the least unique pokemon out there, and usually, the most UNIQUE ones suck (IE chatot or Castform). So they can't do much BUT copy/paste with new designs but the same moves. Ofcourse..vespiquen is awesome.

 

[Orion-Sama]

Yes, because there's also only one butterfly and moth species in the world.

Regardless of any interpretation, Pokémon still tries to emulate the real world in one way or another. You don't see only one species of bird, a certain insect, and what-have-you, in the planet. There are several, and yes, they do differ, as does the design of Butterfree and Beautifly. Also they don't play the same way, at all. They might be extremely similar, but Butterfree has Compound Eyes. Beautifly has Swarm. Butterfree also learns Poison Powder and Sleep Powder. Beautifly only learns Stun Spore. As such, Butterfree is better geared for disruption, while Beautifly is more offensive. Even outside of competitive play, this does make a difference. They can't be used and raised in the exact same way.

And well, you can't compare Snorlax with Slaking. Both are lazy, but they still play entirely differently, even in-game. Snorlax has no drawback. Slaking does. Snorlax is caught as-is from the get-go and is a semi-unique Pokémon. Slaking evolves from a rare Pokémon found in a forest. Plus, unlike Butterfree and Beautifly, they're both based off different animals.

Likewise, Abra and Ralts are different. For one, they're majorly different in appearance. That already plays a huge part and destroys any argument that they're based off the same concept. And like the rest, they play differently and are trained differently. If anyone is unable to see how they're different, it's the person's fault, not the Pokémon's. In the end, the fact stands. They're not the same in any way, shape or form. The fact that both can be caught in the game makes this one the most pointless of all comparisons.

 

[Cybersai]

Saying the fossils are ripoffs are ridiculous.

So apparently they're not allowed to make new Pokemon that you get from fossils? Armaldo/Cradily are NOTHING like Omastar/Kabutops, which goes to show you how ridiculous comparing these Pokemon really is.

 

[Psyburn]

What the hell? Who said anything about fossils?

 

[Cybersai]

Its from a page or so back:

They had Cradily and Armaldo, which essentially replaced the old fossil pokemon.

Which doesn't make sense. Why are they not allowed to make new fossil Pokemon?

 

[Psyburn]

Its from a page or so back:



Which doesn't make sense. Why are they not allowed to make new fossil Pokemon?

Good question. I like Armaldo.

However, if they make it so you can only get one fossil based on your ID, they should never be allowed to make new fossils ever again :complain: bastards I swear...

 

[Rоulette Goddess]

Which doesn't make sense. Why are they not allowed to make new fossil Pokemon?

I think he's trying to say that they're Hoenn's fossils. Like, every region has its own fossils, Rattata, Pidgey, etc... I think that's what he meant, Scotty.

 

[flaming infernape]

My only complaint with the 3rd gen was how you had no post-elite 4 events. Fixed in Emerald with battle frontier and a lot of other things, but that's the only problem I had with R/S; nothing to do, not including the battle tower.

 

[Laughing Bat]

Well I don't know about everybody else but for me it wasn't as much about ripping them off as it was replacing them. For instance, in gen 2 they had a new bird pokemon, hoothoot. But you could still get pidgey. If I could of got butterfree in gen 3 then beautifly wouldn't of bothered me, it would of seemed like an addition, one I wouldn't like but at the same time I wouldn't be bothered by it.

I don't understand why some of these guys are being called rip offs though (ralts and the fossile pokemon in paticular) as they have different themes (ralts always came off as an alien theme to me while abra has a fox theme.) And yes, you can compare Snorlax with Slaking, they both have a similar theme and if your a fan of one but not the other it's annoying when the one your a fan of is excluded in favor of the other.

In a game where collecting plays a big part you need to be able to enjoy what your collecting, Not be reminded of what you'd rather collect. Some of us didn't like the style gen 3 pokemon had. I would of enjoyed r/s/e a lot more had they for example made caterpie available in one and weedle available in the other, made HootHoot available in one and pidgey available in the other. Snorlax should be in every pokemon game(zubat already is ) little bit's of variety splashed throughout as a way of including the previous generations pokemon without excluding the new generation they were introducing would of made a lot of fans happier.


Like I said in my earlier post, there is nothing wrong with people liking r/s/e and it's style. At the same time there is nothing wrong with people such as myself not liking them. Hell Fr/Lg we're practically made specifically for people like us.

 

[Shinx3000]

These two statements are contradictory.

No they don't , I didn't say Slaking and Absol had the highest attack, I said Slaking had the THIRD highest attack and Absol had the HIGHEST of any non legendary

 

[Mijzelffan]

A complaint I see here a lot of times is that you can't trasfer pokémons from previous generations. There are three reasons for that if you ask me.

1. In generation II it was possible to clone pokémon, and thus get all powerfull old pokémon, (which might prevent people from training the Hoenn ones), get glitched pokemon from generation I, get pokémon which could be Ev trained endelessly etc.
2. MOST IMPORTANT ONE: They changed the entire IV/ EV stuff. It would be one big mess if you could transfer pokémon from Gen II.
3. They probably already planned FR/LG and Colosseum, so they knew you could get all pokémon this way.

And for #1, don't use the "you can clone in emerald too" argument, since emerald didn't exist when they thought of it, and they wouldn't know that you could clone in it.

 

[Layla]

My least favorite is the fourth gen...I don't really like any of them...except maybe Gallade and Glameow...
But the third was good in my opinion. I love Altaria, Delcatty, and Gardevoir especially. But I also think several of the Pokemon were kind of creepy...like Grumpig, Loudred, Nosepass...yeah.

The games were great though!

 

[Phoenicks]

I don't know why everyone is criticizing me, it's my opinion, and it why I don't like Gen III. If you like Gen III, don't let my opinion get in your way.

Originally posted by PDL:
Not bothering to take closer looks and to do research is just laziness on the player's part then. It's also extremely lazy to not try new things.

You can't really be saying that. If there's a problem with the game, it's the developers fault, not the players. If the player wants to play a game in a certain way, he should be able to play it in his/her own way. Blaming the player when the developer designs a game where you have to play one way isn't fair to the consumer.

Originally posted by *Orion*
Yes, because there's also only one butterfly and moth species in the world.

Regardless of any interpretation, Pokémon still tries to emulate the real world in one way or another. You don't see only one species of bird, a certain insect, and what-have-you, in the planet. There are several, and yes, they do differ, as does the design of Butterfree and Beautifly. Also they don't play the same way, at all. They might be extremely similar, but Butterfree has Compound Eyes. Beautifly has Swarm. Butterfree also learns Poison Powder and Sleep Powder. Beautifly only learns Stun Spore. As such, Butterfree is better geared for disruption, while Beautifly is more offensive. Even outside of competitive play, this does make a difference. They can't be used and raised in the exact same way.

I'm talking about the ideas behind those pokemon, not the actual pokemon themselves. Beautifly and Buterfree were both designed to be a butterfly at the height of a 3-stage pokemon line early in the game. Ralts and Abra are both early-game psychics that start off weak, but if you raise them, they become quite powerful. Snorlax and Slaking were both rare normal types that were very powerful. I'm not complaining about the pokemon themselves, I understand that they have different moves and such. I'm complaining about the lack of new ideas behind them. And there are more than 1 of each animal type, yes, but why do we have two butterflies when we don't have 1 dolphin? Or why don't we have a penguin? I want some new ideas fueling the pokemon, and some new animals too.

Originally posted by Scott85:
Saying the fossils are ripoffs are ridiculous.

So apparently they're not allowed to make new Pokemon that you get from fossils? Armaldo/Cradily are NOTHING like Omastar/Kabutops, which goes to show you how ridiculous comparing these Pokemon really is.

They're rip-offs because they have the same basic idea propelling them. They re-used the concept of being able to choose between two different fossil pokemon, and only getting one fossil. At least for DPPt, the gave you multiples of the fossils, and you could get more than one type. Why can't the next fossil pokemon have a new idea in how you obtain them? Like there's a museum petting zoo with ancient pokemon that you're allowed to catch. All they did for Gen III was re-use the 'pick one of two fossils, but you only get one' idea from before.

My Opinion is that Gen III wasn't the best because it re-used the same concepts that were the ideas for these pokemon.

 

[Sleet]

We have a whole evolutionary line of penguins. Or did you mean in generation III?

Also, I don't think the recycled fossil concept is a fault with the Pokémon designs, so much as with the story. But to be fair, it does encourage trading, which is still not done too much.