>>58429434>>58429501The setting in general was just always going to be more interesting with Arceus because the colonization of Hokkaido in the 1800s but with pokemon and a guy who wants to usurp God just is innately more fun to think about than just.. 5 years after an already completed story set in a mostly inaccessible city with at most two or three returning characters.
There's also just the thing of the Legends series now not really making much sense - what are the themes and so on that distinguish it from mainline pokemon? With Legends Arceus it was obvious that it was that it was set in the distant past and the player character was therefore a fish out of water without strong connections to anyone around them and forced into danger to get by. It was slightly more serious in tone than most of the pokemon games due to this and the gameplay was harder, though the game still had lighthearted moments. With ZA its set.. 5 years into the amazing distant future of 2018, the protagonist is living in modern day and in a modern city without any real "bad guy" or threats, so there's no real danger, its lighthearted to the point of sugar poisoning.. it has nothing in common with LA except for the branding.
I also think that since Gamefreak is clearly worthless at 3D graphics LA ended up just looking better since with a wilderness setting there's more variation in biomes and things feel less cluttered so you generally don't notice the shitty flat textures quite as much, whereas with LZA you're in a city so you're constantly looking at walls and door and buildings and so its more jarring to see how flat everything looks.
