>>40576272>Culture, merchandise and pokemon go aren’t actual features of the games, yet you list them as reasons why the games are good. Do you not understand how stupid that is?Results kid. That's basic business 101. Nice try though.
>they’re objectively the worst because, being that it’s the first and is running on inferior hardware, it understandably lacks all of the features and depth that the future entries have.>There are no natures, no EVs, no breeding, no competitions, no customizations, no gender options, and countless other things that have been implemented into the games that have been mainstay features.There was a primitive version of EVs called Stat Experience which was featured in gen 1 but I digress.
Again, that is objectively towards the game. However success because it was simple yet effective is still objectively correct as well. They are two sides of the same coin, but you still dont see it. Objectively means facts. Facts are from a business perspective like I've stated. And from a technical perspective like you are stating. It's a catch-22 argument because technically you could be right or I could. There is no winner or there are two winners.
You were shifting the question to say "objectively only means games" but it doesnt only. "The gameplay was simple yet effective so much so it garnered these results."
Whether or not it has more or less mechanics is irrelavant. Objectively you can say it has less means its bad, objectively I could say it was simple yet effective, we are both right. Do you still understand?
>most boring and lackluster game in the seriesSubjectivity/Fallacy argument? So close anon, I really thought you were going for gold man.
>And you can post as many reaction images and gifs as you want, but it doesn’t add to your argument (or lack of) and only outs you as being a newfag>I have to resort to fallacies even after I've tried to use objective ones. Why are you destroying your own argument? Hell if I know 