>>32961724Assuming you aren't a massive faggot and talking about it competitively, you're wrong.
See, besides the competitive side, there is no real way to judge that thing objectively, as there is not a single truth there, and if there isn't a truth, you can't observe that truth without involving your feelings and opinions. Thus, you can't be objective here.
Now, this is not the first time humanity has faced such a situation. People have always wanted to decide what is good art and what isn't, so it will be easier to find that good art. So that they don't have to waste their limited time on earth seeing bad art, just hoping to find something they like. They wanted a way to simply label some art "good" and other "bad".
How they went about it? Simple. They let the majority decide. If enough people thought something looked good, they would consider that good. They would analyze what made that thing good, and use those things as the standards for an art to be good. Came in people like Picaso, who applied almost none of the standard "good" things in their art, yet people still liked his art. Because the majority liked it, because enough people liked it, it became "good" art, despite being unlike any other.
You can see the point I'm trying to make, can't you? In the end, what you individually think is unimportant. The majority liked Greninja. Therefore, it is the "best". Not Chesnaught. There is no basis to your statement that Chesnaught is the best. That is a random statement. Greninja being the best, however, do have a basis. People. They like it. More than anything else, except maybe Zard and Pikachu. Thus, Greninja is the best.
