>>35085794Ignore the other guys response. Let's just put it this way: regardless of how you feel about certain games or designs being better, you can't deny that everything after Gold/Silver has been "phoned in" to a certain extent. Where as GS were true sequels, everything after reeks of EA-isation, with a yearly release model of roster updates and small negligible mechanics changes. GS were made at a time when the company had no guarantee that there would be another game after, let alone a series. and it shows. Gold/Silver stands up against its peers, competing for the best RPG title of the gameboy, or even anything else out at that time. It was both accessible but deep enough to warrant delving in and exploring mechanics further.
Compare that to now. Overly complex to the point where people would rather cheat than spend hours pointlessly grinding. Yet the main campaigns are as deep as a puddle. Uengaging to the point where people would rather mash A through inane cutscenes and not have to deal with single mon AI battles, because it gets in the way of a post game that never comes.
Compare the games to its peers now. Can you truly say that they stand up against the giants of the RPG world? Are they industry defining like in the past? Do they compete with the Personas and the Zeldas of now? Pokémon games now are merely "good enough." There's no expectation. The devs coast on name alone. The fan base is told to actively lower their standards from the devs themselves. Don't expect much in a world full of phone games and dumb kids. Sure, Gamefreak. because kids now are so different from kids in the 90s.
GF is lazy in that they take our money and love for granted. I love Pokémon, but after the lackluster showing that was the 3DS era games, I'm less inclined to buy day one. I'm less inclined to buy at all. but hey, if GF is content pumping out mediocre kids games to cross promote with their multimedia billion dollar empire, then they can be content losing fans.
