>>46938672I definitely prefer the Gen 1/2 aesthetic to everything that came afterwards, but I'm not an art guy, so I can't put together much of an argument for why. When it comes to RBG in particular, it's got that "rough around the edges" sort of feeling that comes with a game being a passion project rather than part of a franchise. There was less of an attempt to stay "on brand", so you'd wind up with stuff like Pokemon clearly intended to be cutesy nonetheless looking a little weird/creepy, cool Pokemon that nonetheless looked a little goofy, etc. And Pokemon that actually *were* intended to be weird/offputting felt a little bit more genuinely menacing (I'm mostly thinking of Pokemon like Haunter or Alakazam).
When it comes to gameplay, I think it's a similar deal. FRLG are great remakes that add a lot to the original games, but the design philosophy was different enough in RBG that I'd still say they're worth checking out, like
>>46938762 said. The campaign is balanced more around Pokemon having shitty level-up movepools, for instance, so stuff like TMs wind up mattering a lot more. Although I can see that sort of thing being tough to go back to if you're used to the newer titles.
>>46938858It seems to be made from the perspective of someone interested in playing competitive, which I don't think most people do. Most (though definitely not all) of that stuff will almost never come up in the campaign, and if it does, it wouldn't really be a big deal. But they're all presented as these massive gotchas.
Yeah, Haze only curing your opponent is lame, but who seriously cares that moves like Night Shade can deal their fixed damage regardless of type?
