Your controversial opinions

[BackSet]

I think the reason I liked gen 6 was because it was easy. I mean, in some areas I had trouble because I was young and idiotic but at the time and to this very day I despised how grindy most turn based RPGs are and the fact that I didn't need to grind as much in gen 6 was something I loved.

 

[Norzan]

It's completely fair to use past games as references for why later games just aren't as good. It's not that people want Emerald 2 or Black and White 3, but because they want games with a similar quality or even higher quality. Those people feel they are paying the same for the new games as they did for the past games, but the newer games are of lesser quality to them. And paying the same but for worse is a terrible thing to a lot of people.

 

[BackSet]

Ignoring the fact that the older games really don't hold up by modern standards. Or any standards.

 

[Norzan]

Ignoring the fact that the older games really don't hold up by modern standards. Or any standards.

Since when that's a fact? You can find the older games worse, but it's not a fact in the slightest, it's your opinion.

 

[Esserise]

Ignoring the fact that the older games really don't hold up by modern standards. Or any standards.

Modern standards, sure (but then, they're not really meant to hold up to those... the thing about fundamental hardware limitations is that they are, well, fundamental), but "any" standard is a phenomenally harsh bar to set. Which is definitely within the purview of this thread, but it's also the kind of claim that really begs for some elaboration.

 

[Norzan]

And to me personally, a lot of the modern standards are terrible, leading to franchises getting more and more shallow with each new entry. So saying something doesn't hold up to modern standards can mean something very good to me when you are putting an older game through today's lenses.

 

[swiftgallade46]

It's completely fair to use past games as references for why later games just aren't as good. It's not that people want Emerald 2 or Black and White 3, but because they want games with a similar quality or even higher quality. Those people feel they are paying the same for the new games as they did for the past games, but the newer games are of lesser quality to them. And paying the same but for worse is a terrible thing to a lot of people.

I can agree with this. There’s no reason to force people into buying something that they don’t feel is worth it just because millions of others feel differently. Quality is subjective; it’s as simple as buy it if you like it and don’t buy it if you don’t. No one should feel guilty either way.

 

[RK9]

It was just their social media rep making a joke and it was later deleted.

But where was the lie?

 

[prog rocker]

My two cents on the older games and modern standards: As someone that plays both modern and retro games I can say I can see both sides of the arguments.

Modern games tend to have better gameplay, but the hyper realism some of them aim for does kill the individuality of them.

Retro games tend to be more charming, but sometimes the gameplay can be unforgiving (I'm looking at you, Street Fighter II!)

On the Pokémon games itself, I feel Gen II and III do hold up, at least for "first game in a franchise" standards. But Gen I is... uh... well, I do have problems saying nice things about them, even with the 6 years of development it had.

 

[Daren]

It's worth noting that as rough as gen 1 was it was doing something very ambitious: every single enemy is potentially a party member.
Enemy recruitment had been done (Shin Megami Tensei, Dragon Quest V, some more obscure titles), but I'm not aware of any predating R/B/G/Y where everything was recruitable. That made it pretty massive for a gameboy RPG, and big games tend to be messy, especially back in that era.
Factor in that it seems to have been GameFreak's first RPG and it's surprising it worked as well as it did (and honestly some of the things I see brought up as gen 1 weirdness like seemingly odd TM choices actually make perfect sense from the perspective of a single player focused RPG).

 

[Norzan]

I do have to make a remark about a trend that has been happening in this thread and it's: how is saying Sword and Shield, and any other of the 3D games, are not bad or that you like them when the amount of sales apparently dictates how well a game is liked? And apparently anyone criticizing the last few games are a loud minority? That would mean saying the newer games are good is the popular opinion, and saying they are bad is the unpopular opinion.

 

[Galactic_V]

I usually like first installments due to the different stuff they tend to have from the sequels\continuations (also called First Installment Weirdness). Take Pokemon for example, Red\Green mentioned real-world countries (Russia, Guyana), making me believe that Kanto was the real Kanto, it's the only game where you need special Goggles to see Ghost-type Pokemon, that you battle a spirit (and deals with death in a shocking manner), etc...

Pretty much applies to everything media-related out there since the franchise hasn't been fully developed yet, thus producers are still toying with ideas and checking what works and what doesn't.

 

[Esserise]

Me personally, I don't really bother holding older Pokémon games up to "current" standards because for the most part, I've just stopped replaying the old games altogether. My life's a lot busier these days, so I'm okay with letting things die after their time has passed and just preserving them in my memory. Pokémon Sword doesn't need to captivate me forever, nor does it strictly need to captivate me as much as an older game did, so long as it's fun for the duration of time I'm focused on it. And one day, I'll move on to the next. I occupy a weird boundary between casual and hardcore play styles, I think.

I do have to make a remark about a trend that has been happening in this thread and it's: how is saying Sword and Shield, and any other of the 3D games, are not bad or that you like them when the amount of sales apparently dictates how well a game is liked? And apparently anyone criticizing the last few games are a loud minority? That would mean saying the newer games are good is the popular opinion, and saying they are bad is the unpopular opinion.

This is why I generally dislike "unpopular opinion" threads, about any subject. They seem to almost invariably transmute into "let me tout my own opinion because it's the one I have" threads.

That said, I think the effect you're seeing is at least partially down to the fandom/general audience dichotomy. For instance, one of my posts in this thread was about how I think USUM's version of Lusamine is a positive enhancement of the character. Out there in the real world, I'm willing to bet that an enormous swath of players don't even care enough to have an opinion about it in the first place, or weren't so invested in SM's portrayal of her to feel strongly affected by the changes. But within the online communities of people that are more emotionally and intellectually invested in the games, there are some Strong Opinions about USUM, and displeasure with those games' approach to Lusamine is, in my experience, a common one, which I always feel like I'm pushing back against it. Through that paradigm, my opinion seems "unpopular."

With the quality of the games, I think it's similar. The millions upon millions of people who bought SwSh broadly seemed to like it, so liking SwSh isn't an unpopular opinion overall... but there's such a strong presence of negative feelings about the games within the online forums that Bulbagarden users are likely to frequent, that the negativity can possibly feel like more than it is, and as a result, a user might begin to feel as though their enjoyment of the game is comparatively uncommon, especially if their threshold for what would generate the same kind of negative response from themselves is much higher (e.g. "I don't even care about Dexit"). This hypothetical user might also not be friends in real life with anyone who plays the game more casually. meaning that their exposure to other fans is going to be limited to the online circles that they frequent. But at the same time, someone who doesn't like SwSh might feel as though they are in the minority, because of the game's aforementioned success and generally positive reception with the general public. So one's perception of their own position plays a big role here. It's almost like seeing a fractal spiral coil forever inward. Broad popular appeal and success means that the dissenters are the minority. But a subset of people within that minority will then take to the Internet to project their opinions very loudly in response, which causes the satisfied people within those communities to feel overwhelmed. Cue the reclamation efforts in which they go against the grain as they perceive it, which in turn causes people who still disapprove of how things were handled to ask questions like the one you've posed, because now it seems like they're being told two contradictory narratives. It definitely doesn't help that there are going to be the occasional agitators on both sides*.

* I kinda hate using the phrase "both sides" because it's been so warped by political discourse and because it often assumes a binary issue. I hope it goes without saying that there are monumental degrees of difference between "factions of fans arguing about Pokémon games" and "people standing up for human rights against oppressors and bigots," and that I am referring strictly to "both sides" of the former.

 

[BackSet]

"factions of fans arguing about Pokémon games"

“Factions” make this sound way cooler than it actually is.

 

[TechSkylander1518]

for example i know its really easy to compare a generation like gen 6 to the games that came before it and cry "gen 6 has terrible characters so these games are bad!! this gen was too easy these games are bad!!" but thats kinda wrong imo. while gen 6 is my fave gen i can admit that the characters were a little lacking (in xy, oras did a much better job here but i digress) and compared to the games i grew up with they were easier to beat but why does that really matter?? do little things that literally dictate the quality of an entire game?? its a pokemon game so if youre having fun with it its a good game. sure it may be a little flawed in some places but the purpose of a game is to chill and have a good time.

While I agree that people shouldn't feel bad about liking the newer games because of X flaw, I feel like this argument that people shouldn't dislike a game because of the flaw is almost the same thing in reverse. People have a right to want certain things out of a game, and their standards can differ from yours. If they don't like a game for not delivering on some front, that doesn't mean they dislike the game because it's different from past ones or because they want to jump on a bandwagon, it just means they weren't satisfied with the game, and that's okay.

 

[Norzan]

Specially with what people have fun is entirely subjective, and the removal of features or the series going in a direction an individual doesn't like can mean they are no longer having fun.

And people can be critical of something while still enjoying it.

 

[Lanstar]

In my mind, 'easy' doesn't always mean better. In fact, methods to make a game easy can really depersonalize the game in very annoying ways.

As an example: The Exp. Share, especially after the revision since Gen VI. I really, really dislike the way it is used to make the gameplay easy. Why? While mechanically, it might solve the classic noob issue of only training one Pokemon and nothing else, it's unbearably unnatural to the Pokemon world itself.

Just imagine Exp. Share in the Anime: Wouldn't it be weird if each time Ash's Pikachu won a battle, some key item copies and transfers some of the experience gained to every other Pokemon in his Party, all so they gain more strength, learn new moves, and potentially evolve - all while the party did absolutely nothing? There's a reason why such an item never gets mentioned in any episode I've seen, if at all: It would sound utterly ridiculous to have such a power in a breathing, living world!

Another thing that Exp. Share does is warp our entire ideas of what training a Pokemon means - and force us to take it almost entirely for granted. In past games, people used to say, "I'm training this Pokemon." Now it's more like "I'm training my party Pokemon." But how much of the actual 'effort' did you do per Pokemon to get them as strong as they are? With Exp. Share as of right now, you can't tell at all, as when you train one Pokemon, all of your party is trained at the same time. Your memories of your efforts blend between all Pokemon, not individual ones - And I feel it weakens my sense of bonding with each Pokemon I train individually as a result.

All of this is why I'd make the games less reliant on Exp. Share - and only allow it to be used during the postgame.

edit: Completed what I wanted to say - I clicked 'send' too early. >.<

 

[BackSet]

I'm willing to sacrifice "immersion" for not being forced to waste my time grinding. I do not play Pokemon to sit there and battle wild Pokemon after wild Pokemon for hours just so I can keep my team all on the same level. I do not have the time to put into that nor do I have the attention span.

I may agree with the fact that it shouldn't be an un-turn-off-able feature (look at me, I made a word) but I think removing it entirely except for post-game is a terrible idea.

 

[RK9]

You know, something I really hate about fanart, fanfiction or other stuff involving the rivals and their respective protagonist (Friend group, I guess?), is that a lot of them choose to... flat out ignore one of the protagonists. ANd it's pretty much always the male one.

The amount of times I've seen Galar group fanart and it's just Gloria, Marnie, Hop and Bede, you don't want to know. It's like they don't exist at all while for example Gen 5 showed that even if you don't pick them, they still exist in the world (Same with Ethan/Lyra, Lucas/Dawn, Serena/Calem, you get the point).

In short, I guess I demand equal protagonist rights.

 

[Lanstar]

I'm willing to sacrifice "immersion" for not being forced to waste my time grinding. I do not play Pokemon to sit there and battle wild Pokemon after wild Pokemon for hours just so I can keep my team all on the same level. I do not have the time to put into that nor do I have the attention span.

I may agree with the fact that it shouldn't be an un-turn-off-able feature (look at me, I made a word) but I think removing it entirely except for post-game is a terrible idea.

The grinding part is not the fault of the Exp. Share being lost, though - it's the fault of the other game design mechanics themselves. If there was a way to cut down the process of grinding to balance levels without cutting into the immersion, I'd be all for it. But Exp. Share, unfortunately, is more or less a hack solution - and something needing a much better replacement.