>>43929607True, but is a piece of hold not worth still something even if a diamond is worth more, not game names but actual gold.
>>43929616Not true my friend, it was after Generation 5, but you all did it to yourselves. I bought White, and later Black 2, I played them, and actually paid attention, and ngl, they were extremely good, the story was deep, and sure it was linear, but BW2 wasn't as linear as BW. The post game was by far the most expansive since GSC's without adding a full other region.
>>43929647If we cannot see past our own nostalgia, then how are we to seperate what was objectively good from what was subjectively good ah? Rather than ban them, they should be helped to learn to see past their nostalgia, so the can be objective.
>>43929658Of course not, I'm afraid that despite my subjectively enjoying Gen 6 and so far 8, not very good was Gen 7, and 6 and 8 have problems for miles. One can address the issues without the issues making them bad, but likewise, too many issues can make them appear bad. Diamonds are found in the rough and polished and cut, the blemishes becoming their beauty if they compliment it, but being discarded if they tarnish it.
>>43929679I disagree friend, I feel that Gens 3, 4, and 5 were a strict progression. I often see Gens 1 and 2 as separate yet parallel events, and I certainly would disagree that they were a lower quality. I would see Gens 1 and 2 as betas for Gens 3, 4, and 5, where Gen 3 took the base, and built up, with gen 4 improving it further, culminating in Gen 5.
>>43929724I'm inclined to agree, except for the part about Gen 3, although I admit my subjectivity regarding this particular remark, as I enjoy and still play Gen 3, so perhaps I just don't feel it as awkwardly as you might. Who knows.
>>43929989Absolutely not, Gen 6 simply signified a downhill dip in quality. Problem is, this is like buoyancy. 6 felt like a step and a half back from Gen 5, like a 3.5, with 7 just feeling like the most awful.
