>>56200144>Black/WhiteWay too vague. I will assume that the "shitty design" comment is mainly about the Pokémon, in which case it's at least not unique. It's safe to say a lot of the poor opinions on Unova's Pokémon came from both a lot of weaker designs being at the start and a few areas in the first games having repetitive teams. The designs are still subjective, and quite a few have gotten a lot of praise. This also doesn't factor in how the sequels redid the regional dex, though this seems to only be counting original versions. Unpopular would fit more with actual players than general reception by present day, but this is contradicted later with SWSH.
>X/YMight be a joke on the version names, but I could also see this being a point on Kalos having little identity. Out of all the criticisms, this is one of the most founded. It's always been the biggest issue with these games.
>Sun/MoonThis is the most nonsensical statement of the bunch. Don't see how you'd tie these games into the 2016 election if it was meant to be a joke. Pokémon has rarely been a GOTY nominee if that was the point instead. It can't be Famitsu's sells award, since the games did win it. Like Sinnoh, this was an easier target that they blew with ESL nonsense.
>Sword/ShieldJust copy-pasted from BW. The design criticism does stick a little better with there being less Pokémon in this batch, but once again it is still more subjective. The region's structure, rough graphics outside select areas, and ridiculous character motivations would all be more effective targets here. While the games have fallen a lot out of discussion, they still did sell among the best here.
>Scarlet/VioletObvious, but I would mention the disappointing open world design along or even above the bugs.
This is just a bunch of lukewarm takes that add almost nothing, and in some cases are ignoring any nuance. I mostly just want to know what the hell they meant about Sinnoh and Alola.
