>>53151758I am happy to explain why I think that.
XY were somewhat lacklustre, basically the 2D formula and design philosophy mapped onto a 3D world. There were some aspects I liked, but it felt like GF were pandering to gen 1 fans to try to sell the struggling 3DS and it was clear that a studio previously full of sprite artists weren't equipped to jump straight into making 3D games. Also French Ganondorf and his gang of... fashion enthusiasts (?) made little sense. The rivals/friends made little lasting impression. It was the start of the decline with the implementation of features like the exp share.
SM had their charm. I think the story was better, but the delivery made it a chore, constantly stopping you with cutscenes and tutorials. USUM made minor improvements but gutted the conclusion to the original story to shoehorn in Rainbow Rocket.
Sword and Shield were the absolute worst of the 3D games. Dexit, forced Exp. share, linear routes, no dungeons awful optimisation and the disappointing wild area implementation. Sadly SV didn't do enough to remedy and remove the problems.
PLA was a breath of fresh air. Good ideas and fun, but needed more dev time and expansion upon the concepts present to really shine. Also I wouldn't consider it a traditional Pokémon game.
Which brings me to SV. I like a lot of the concepts. The open world was much better than the wild area, but left a lot to be desired. Buildings and towns were gimped as a result. It desperately needed to scale at least the gyms to your level or badges. And of course it had all the bugs and glitches.
In short, SV were a great concept, poorly implemented and sorely in need of more dev time. The flaws of the other 3D games drag them down too much in my opinion, but I enjoyed SV despite its issues.
You may not agree, but that is why I think SV are the best of the pitiful 3D games we have received.
