>>470057912/2 the negative:
>games are ugly? I dont personally understand this. I think they looked good and are at the very keast better looking than gen 3.
>the games are easierThis is true even if some things are optional. Exp share, original RS teams instead of the better emerald ones, megas when no npc besides Steven uses one.
>teleportsMost are optional but yea I didnt like this. Though its really not a huge deal.
>"butchered" new mauville, granite cave and sky pillar.Granite cave was still as explorable as the original, just at a later time. The original new mauville wasnt very interesting but I agree they shouldnt have changed it. Sky pillar shouldnt have changed, the bike puzzles were a nice challenge.
>didn't fix xy engine problemsThe lowered frame rate and chugging was pretty bad, but rare.
>no character customizingI agree it would have been cool, but emerald didnt have it, and no other remake had it.
>no gym leader rematchesI agree this was bullshit. But triggering them in emerald was so tedious and random that they might as well have not existed.
>grid based movementWho gives a fuck? Emerald was grid based too
>no game cornerOnce again who gives a fuck? Did people actually play the slots? I always just bought coins. Besides they had no choice.
I tried to be mostly impartial. I dont really know which is better, though I prefer oras.
After reading through I realized most of the positives are somewhat superficial or insubstantial but nonetheless improvements, and most of the negatives are overstated or exaggerated, though still valid and in fact make emerald still a valid choice. I guess I would say they both have merits. I still think OrAs are great games and overly hated.
