>>19189642Gen 1 and Gen 2 are among the most centralized of all metas, yet are also by % among the most diverse in viable mons compared to the total.
Instead of answering 'worst because I don't like it,' I'll instead consider another aspect of generational meta comparison: long term strategy.
The only skill required in Pokemon is the press of a button. However, there is a level of strategical thinking required that rewards good team building and smart play.
I would argue that Gen 2 required the greatest amount of strategy to win, and thus was the most rewarding game to play. It had minimal luck for the series (luck/rng only favors the loser in long term), and was paced in a way to require maximizing each turn since the matchups were tight (thus hammering things down with checks and counters wasn't an option).
I feel that you lose a lot of that with power creep, which starts in Gen 3 with things like Choice Band and better boosting moves like Dragon Dance, ramped up in Gen 4 with higher offensive stats and moves (Flare Blitz, Close Combat, etc); I really shouldn't have to mention gen 5/6 in terms of power creep.
If I were to rank them by how much they rewarded good play and team building/strategy, I'd say it goes something like:
Gen 2 > Gen 1/3/4 > Gen 5/6*
This isn't saying Gen 1=3=4, but instead that they're in a similar range of being below 2 and above 5/6. Think of them as tiers; you can rank whichever one you (don't) like as a +/- as you like.
*I haven't played enough Gen 6 compared to the other gens; it's possible for it to move up (or down) a tier.
