>>50730216>but many mundane points that don't compare to other pixel-based titles of the eraI'm willing to agree. But I will say that a lot of pokemon lost when they made the change to 3D. Marshtomp, being on of my favorite pokemon was ruined after the Gamecube. The thing is- the games back in the day were a mess for a lot of reasons, and I think graphics and art style wasn't one of them. Overworld is blocky and uninteresting for the most part, that I won't ever deny. So what they were left with is to make the battles look good, which I think they succeeded in time and time again. Even Gen4 which is still (imo) the worst gen in the series still had solid sprite work for both pokemon and attacks. Simple, and effective, with a sprite based RPG you have to leave somethings up to imagination, and pokemon did that well in sprites. The problem I have with 3D isn't just because the pokemon have 3 basic animations (and nothing else) but because the attacks are generic too. The real issue is that the battles feel like they're modeled and animated like they could be done by anyone, and when you go from 2D to 3D that really isn't ok. Since we see in 3D the games shouldn't feel like generic 2 battle animations. Something like Double-kick for example; in 2D static sprites, it shows a monster foot with a crunchy sound effect. But in 3D they just made the pokemon stand in their idle animation and move on the Y-axis. So while I'd say 3D was innevitable, it in no way does more than the sprite work, it's not even close. And to be perfectly clear, I think Emerald is my fav; however, I really, really enjoyed SuMo and UsUm. Even though they are 3D, the setting and actual story points with characters and world building are what make it a top contender for me, and not the graphical fedelity. I'd probably even go as far to say SwSh would be up there too... if it were on the 3DS, being on the Switch is an embarrasment.
