>>27286952? It's what I've been arguing since the very beginning. Most people in this thread are judging the games without knowing anything programming-wise, god, a lot of them probably wouldn't know the missigno glitch without internet to begin with to give the most famous example, so of course what a "flaw" is is subjective. It isn't programming wise of course but this thread isn't about programming alone, hell, 3/4 of the "arguments" of this thread are probably nostalgia-related. How is that objective.
>It wouldn't be nitpicking if the glitches actively hinder my enjoyment of the game. It is you who is defining them as "added value", not me. That categorization is, again, subjective.Exactly. But this isn't green where the game was so poorly made that you could swap pokemons with items. BRY is VERY glitchy but most of the glitches are benign.
And no, I like glitches when they are "fun" but if they are hindering me I'm against them too. They ARE bad from a programming PoV. It's just that in BR's case, it wasn't anything too game-breaking and a lot of liked them so much that they triggered them themselves for exploration (see:glitch city). When the glitches ARE game-breaking, or course it' another story altogether, I will not say the opposite, at all.
IMO it depends a lot. Kanto is very good for what most people playing it were back then, kids. Most of them didn'nt care about "technical" things and all. But when iit comes to playing more seriously/competitively, I agree that things like type distribution or, worse, the special stats, are "objectively" bad (except if you just want to rush to the end of the game with an Alakazam, I guess?). Kids will probably not care about it so it's fine with what was its core audience back then (though I can understand why; I think I've read in an Iwata ask that there was like 4 people on the game to do everything, period) but if you want to take the game more seriously, yes, it's a big objective flaw.
