>>47376863Shit list, here's something a little more objective:
5=4>3>6>2>1>7>8
Criteria is based on balancing content and QoL. All compatible games in a generation count, including remakes. So 3 would be counting FRLG as well as Colosseum and Gale of Darkness.
Reason:
>Gens IV and V strike the best balance of content and QoL. A good argument could be made that gen V edges out IV due to superior QoL>Gen III's QoL is significantly lacking compared to IV and V, but there's just so much good content to be had across all the games. It's its own little ecosystem in of itself, without taking any major shortcuts in making past Pokemon available. No lazy shit like Hoopa holes to get past legendaries.>Easily the most controversial placement, gen VI is placed here because X and Y still carry many of the design philosophies of Black and White. ORAS also benefits from being a mostly faithful remake of RS, the main titles from the gen placed right above it. The QoL here is fantastic and building a proper legitimate team is quite easy if you know how. Would've been placed higher if it wasn't blatantly unfinished.>Here we are in "retro" territory, gen II edges out gen I because it's by far a more polished experience, level curve aside. Still a good experience to go back to.>Gen I is here because it's just not quite as well put together as II. It's still the quintessential Pokemon experience, however. Despite its lack of QoL and jank, it's still a very enjoyable ride.>Here we enter the shit territory. Gen VII offered slightly more QoL with the introduction of bottlecops, but not much else. You'll get a nice story your first run through, while you'll constantly ask why you can't skip dialogue every other run.>Gen VIII makes gen VI look complete. The bottom of the barrel. Offers the best QoL to team building, but offers no content to use it on and discourages playing any meta that isn't official. An empty and stilted experience.I expect seething replies, good day.
