>>53280988Are you using this to show the sprite aesthetic, or are you making a comment on the competitive scene?
If the former, Gen 1 sprites absolutely had charm to them, in a rough-sketch, early, unrefined sort of feel. You could more easily feel the ambition of a small team trying to create a cool monster collecting franchise with it. It's got a great feel.
Gen 3's renditions are much better for modern, refined interpretations, though. The Pokemon were in great looking, neutral poses that properly depicted them in a consistent Sugimori style. Had his linework, had his coloring techniques, even in sprite form, and did the very appropriate job of being a very pure "Pokemon-like" depiction. I think both RBG and FrLg are great aesthetically, but for different reasons.
If you were talking competitive, similarly I think both had advantages. Gen 1 competitive is as close to solved as any competitive Meta has been (aside from maybe early ORAS Ubers or Gen 9 Natdex AG), and because of that, skill expression is a larger piece of the pie. It requires a heavy understanding of the meta and its nuances, and has a much more strict hierarchy, but isn't SO solved that rogue strats are out of the question.
Granted, these advantages werent realized at the time, and are the product of being developed for decades online.
Gen 3 is the predecessor of modern competitive, and was a lot more pure in its essence. It was before a lot of gimmicks were introduced, and the strategies present in today largely have their roots from Gen 3. Powercreep wasn't a factor yet, so the ban list was far, FAR more cut-and-dry, and a greater percentage of Pokemon had a niche that they could exploit.
