>>44447472You can like sub-optimal things, anon.
I like Aggron. Aggron is awful, and I'm okay with that. But I'm never going to pretend Aggron is good because I like it, or that I like it because it's good.
The collection of the best three all have a degree of polish, attention to detail, technical expertise, and effort put into them in common that makes them stand out as games compared to the rest of the series. You're free to like or dislike them, based on whatever criteria is important to you, but they are the best entries in the Pokemon franchise that most represent the best the series has to offer nonetheless, and arguing otherwise, except through incredibly narrow and reductionist lenses, is frankly just wrong. Pretending that there are no objective standards to quality is how we get unfinished, rushed, hackjob messes like X and Y, or Sword and Shield, that people lap up anyways, because they liked it, so it's good.
Biased? Of course, I'm human.
Arrogant, probably, but that's mostly due to usually dealing with people who make a very weak effort to convince me to try harder in this context, and rarely being challenged by anything more developed than "nuh-uh".
Blinded, absolutely not, I'm always looking for more developed arguments to consider; the only blindness I have is what's generally called skepticism, which is important to not allow low-quality data enter a set.
And pretentious, well, that one's a messy word. Not always, but at least 7 or 8 times out of ten, that's used only as a projective statement. I can't say whether this is the 2/3 out of 10 where it's accurate or not, as one's own degree of pretentiousness is very hard to gauge, and it is nearly impossible to measure it on someone else you don't actually know anything about.
I avoid it, as it seems to be degrading into another unfortunate victim of "words that now mean something I don't like", but, what do I know?
And narcissistic? I hate myself.
