Quoted By:
When people speak of Pokemon's jump to 3d, they usually refer to generation 5 making way to generation 6.
They speak of the first mainline titles to use 3d models for the trainers and pokemon, as opposed to 2d sprites, as well as offering an alternative to grid-based movement. Of the generation in which 2d sprite assets were relegated mostly to UI.
I find it disingenuous and kind of obtuse, when people argue that the generation 4 was the first "3d one".
Technically speaking, that is correct, generation 4 was the first one to utilize 3d assets, but that did not come with a shift in design philosophy.
The argument does not advance the conversation and is just there to be pedantic, just like all arguing of semantics.
Do people do that just to be annoying?
Do they actually believe that diamond and pearl would be entirely different games were their environments rendered in 2d?
Personally, I think even generation 6 carries with it some of the old route design philosophy, but it truly was a change in how game freak went about developing Pokemon titles.
What do you think?
