>>46569659Nah, I'm not a nostalgiafagging autist.
Back in the day, there was a legitimate sense of mystery and wonder in the Pokemon world, to Pokemon as a franchise. This is a fact. When I say the Pokemon you like, this is part of what I mean.
In the west, it had become niche, almost like a secret enclave. There was a period where publicly liking Pokemon was social suicide unless maybe you were a girl, but even then. Not such a good look. This is a fact.
This next part is contentious, but around that period, there seemed to be a steady upward quality in each new game they released, as they tried different things and then refined existing systems. You can read old blogposts from around that time about how they were really trying to evolve the franchise, they were constantly trying to one up themselves. It's not the same anymore. They don't do that these days. And, when I say the Pokemon you like, this is part of what I mean.
Recently, they've hit a sort of stride. To long-time fans it seems like they're content with mediocrity, and that may very well be true. But from another, oft-cited perspective, they're just marketing to a new demographic of younger children. I see no reason why both stances are not true. These new games are mediocre, but they are of comfortable accessibility to today's children and bandwagoners.
Eventually, though, bandwagoners will fall off and the series will evolve again, just like it had back in the early/mid-2000s. Things already seem to be heading that way with the upcoming release of Arceus. Will it be perfect? Unlikely. Will it be the gem I described in my second post (
>>46569623)? Unlikely. But it's a step in that direction. They're getting ballsy again. It's a good sign because, for the past few years, the Pokemon world has felt less like a world in and of itself, and more like the stage for a massive social media event.
