>>34999851Excuse me? I've been trying to have a polite discussion with you. Stop insulting me for no reason.
Many series have lasted the test of time and been succesful despite being arguably objectively bad. Call of Duty is the one that pops out most to me. And critic scores (and scores in general) are either very populist (read: not objective) or uninformed (or worse, paid for. I'm nkt saying GF/Nintendo do it, but it devalues their scores even still.)
I understand that the Pokémon games have consistently been rushed, had game-breaking bugs, have not conveyed information to the player well, have "stories" that with a few exceptions hesitate to call a narrative, and rely on the crutch of being a continuous and spanning series to continue production. There are many Pokémon who are locked behind out-of-game events and are poorly implemented into the games themselves, simply having "rare" as their only quality. The games are poorly balanced in every manner: The single-player experience is mind-bogglingly easy, with methods available to make it even easier; the single player experience is incongruous to the multiplayer experience; the multiplayer experience, as you must be fully aware, even in official tournaments, is heavily imbalanced; the distribution of Pokémon is extremely unvaried, with many Pokémon types being nearly unavailable in some regions (like Fire in DPPt) or specific species appearing in literally every game, forfeiting the interconnected nature of the franchise (Why is there Zubat in literally every region, and nearly literally every cave?); and the series is extremely reliant on outside sources to provide any worldbuilding, while the games and outside materials are technically not even connected. It was a pioneer of the monster catching genre, but it is antiquated and poorly constructed. The only thing from its massive multimedia empire that it has going for it is that it has a lot of iconic monsters. That's it. And that's its crutch. Awful.
