FunkyDealer
Banned
X & Y
RBY simply has a different ruleset compared to the later games. It doesn't really affect the single player experience as much as you think, since the battle system is still bound by rules. If you refer to how "broken" the game is in a competitive setting, there are loads of other issues that plagued the games that came after it.You absolutely can call RBY objectively bad in a conversation about the battle system. Its problems go beyond cracks in the foundation (so much so that Gen II was pretty much the overhaul Gen with the splitting of the special stat, introducing 2 new types to balance how OP Psychic was).
I can't understand people saying Gen 1 is the worst.
I can agree it's full of bugs, has some awful sprites and has some very strange decisions, but saying the game that started a huge revolution is the worst one doesn't fit with me.
I guess it probably is the worst game, but it's certainly the game I enjoyed the most, being blissfully unaware of the problems with balance and bugs. As a kid exploring the world of pokemon I never once thought "fucking OP psychic types!" or "bullshit 1/265 chance to miss." I just took them all as part of what I loved. Part of what brought a ton of people together to play games.
That's the game that made me, and a million people fall in love with the series. It's the best game in the series. No other has been able to recapture that, no matter how hard they try.
For my choice of the worst, it's got to be Ruby/Sapphire. I beat them, and didn't buy a pokemon game again until HG/SS. They soured me on the new pokemon games for a while.
That's the game that made me, and a million people fall in love with the series. It's the best game in the series. No other has been able to recapture that, no matter how hard they try.
For me, Sun/Moon is a breath of fresh air. The game is slightly bogged down by too many cutscenes (made much more noticeable by the fact that the next cutscene you'll get is marked on your map, and it gets really grating having it almost always be about a 20 second stroll ahead of you), there's a little too much hand holding in the beginning.X and Y put me to fucking sleep. I quit exactly when I got to some big city and I was forced to do some Pokemon runway fashion bullshit, since My only thought was "this is fucking Pokemon nowadays?!" Plus it was piss-easy.
How does Sun/Moon compare?
For me, Sun/Moon is a breath of fresh air. The game is slightly bogged down by too many cutscenes (made much more noticeable by the fact that the next cutscene you'll get is marked on your map, and it gets really grating having it almost always be about a 20 second stroll ahead of you), there's a little too much hand holding in the beginning.
But the pokemon designs are consistently really good, the setting is light hearted and has its own distinct flavor from the rest of the series, they smartly got rid of gyms and replaced them with Trials, each one having different challenges and goals, and while still pretty easy it feels like it has the difficulty balance of any of the games to date assuming you turn off EXP share (which you should, and resist any urge to grind) and don't overabuse the z-moves. The game keeps pace with your level, rather than letting you slide 5-10 levels ahead and just streamroll everything in one shot like you would in the other games.
As someone who has felt burned out on Pokemon for the last several entries, this one has really revitalize my interest in the series.
I think considering the first gen the worst is overly harsh. In a way, it would be like considering Newton a rather bad physicist because a bit over 200 years later Einstein discovered a much better description of gravity. Or comparing Michael Jordan with George Mikan and saying the latter is total trash he would be a totally useless player in today's basketball.
the basketball thing is a terrible analogy
and no, your inventor analogy implies RBY is outdated and obsolete, which is another objective factor
That is plain wrong, Newtonian physics are in no way obsolete. After all it is what you learn in school and, unless you go on to study Physics at university, you are likely not to learn Special Relativity, much less General Relativity. Newtonian physics is just not a complete description, but it is fairly useful in the right context.
And I don't see why the basketball analogy is so bad, IMO comparing a game from 20 years ago and pointing out its now obvious flaws is the same as comparing players from totally different eras.
So then the physics analogy is wrong then because many concept you see in gen 1 have become obsolete at this point.
The basketball analogy is bad because the comparison feels arbitrary. At worst you're going for a "could these two have a match with each other".
Yeah, it's a shame. I'd love for them to rethink this with the next entry.You forgot that despite being a lush region, the paths are really, really linear and railroady.
RBY simply has a different ruleset compared to the later games. It doesn't really affect the single player experience as much as you think, since the battle system is still bound by rules. If you refer to how "broken" the game is in a competitive setting, there are loads of other issues that plagued the games that came after it.
There were many Pokemon before the physical/special split that had zero usable STAB moves coming off their high attack stat. Pokemon like Kingler, Flareon and Pinsir. Gyarados had to rely on HP Flying for a STAB physical move and we all know how "broken" breeding for Hidden Power was. Then came the centralization of Stealth Rock, sending many Fire and Bug Pokemon to niche tier. Then came the prevalence of weather-based teams where, if you didn't have a weather-based team, you were playing with handicap on, since weather back then was permanent. Then came Mega evolutions that juiced up many Pokemon near the 600 pseudo legendary tier, some of them paired with "broken" abilities that have zero answers.
It's all relative.
but saying the game that started a huge revolution is the worst one doesn't fit with me
The basketball analogy is not arbitrary because I see some people evaluating a 1996 game which was the trend-setter at the time with 2016 eyes. This is simply not fair.
I don't think sports performances or pieces of technology are ever going to be a very apt analogy. You're best sticking to other pieces of entertainment or art. I think we'd be closer to have something like Citizen Kane being contrasted with something like Thor: The Dark World. One is a significant movie for its time, but people still think its merits still hold strong in spite of its problems and dated technology. The other is a more modern film with more modern features, made with more modern technology. It does a lot of things "better" by default just because it gets to benefit from decades of refinements in film-making and advancements in technology. Which you'd prefer or think is better or worse is still pretty subjective however.Man, there's a lot of really good arguments against RBY being the worst in here
but this is not one of them
rby's legacy has nothing to do with the question
rby's legacy has nothing to do with the question
rby's legacy has nothing to do with the question
Yes. It is fair.
In another context it might not be 'fair' but it really seems like some of you REALLY want to change the context of this thread to make it 'not fair' yourselves,.
*person asking me a question* "Which iPhone gen is the worst?"
*me* "... I'd probably go with the first generation, the tech is dated and it's not well supported and..."
*someone else who didn't even ask me the original question to begin with* "Dude what the fuck? That phone changed phones FOREVER. It changed the WORLD. you can't pick it lolol. Think of the question more like, 'Which iPhone gen is the worst, accounting for legacy because that takes precedence over what your actual experience with the device would be like somehow'. Think of the question like that literally only because I say so."
Those really aren't the only issues with gen 1 tbh. Stuff like the awful item and box management were also very realI really don't get a lot of the RBY hate. It had some clunkyness to it, but it also had zero bloat.
The screens and menus all loaded instantly. The infamous "Bugs" listed only applies to some very specific moves and move combinations that they would go undiscovered the majority of players.
It gave us an incredibly large amount of iconic pokemon compared to every other generation.
It gave us an incredibly large amount of iconic NPCs.
It had the best pacing of any pokemon game. Both story and XP gain.
I mean, who cares that Ryhorn had the same call as Charizard? Big deal. Who cares that Bide didn't work? No one used that move anyway. What cares about Leech Seed and Toxic? Only 2 pokemon in the whole game could even have that combo.
I'm sorry, but I'll take a list of minor inconveniences over the horrible XP and pokemon distribution of Gen II any day.
Except it does have an effect on the single-player experience. You can't really choose certain types if you want coverage during your main game because Gen I balance being so wonky led to them having an ineffective movepool. For instance, good luck playing Bugs, Ghosts, or even Dragons because they lack STAB moves and require unorthodox moves just to gain some offense. Generally speaking, some of the Gen I mons with better types and offenses were also poorly balanced in terms of movepool (Charizard gets no Flying STAB and its only good move is Flamethrower and doesn't come until level 45). This is far different than your later examples where it specifically refers to metagame balance.
Those really aren't the only issues with gen 1 tbh. Stuff like the awful item and box management were also very real
Tru. I'm just saying that noting something's legacy isn't a valid defense against criticism, especially not when the context behind the criticism is just "which one isn't as good as the others"I don't think sports performances or pieces of technology are never going to be a very apt analogy. You're best sticking to other pieces of entertainment or art. I think we'd be closer to have something like Citizen Kane being contrasted with something like Thor: The Dark World. One is a significant movie for its time, but people still think its merits still hold strong in spite of its problems and dated technology. The other is a more modern film with more modern features, made with more modern technology. It does a lot of things "better" by default just because it gets to benefit from decades of refinements in film-making and advancements in technology. Which you'd prefer or think is better or worse is still pretty subjective however.
Was diamond/pearl the ones where there were these huge pauses between anything happening in every single battle? If so, that one.
Choose a move to do
paaauuusseeee
your pokemon did a move!
paaaaaussseeee
move animation and sound
paussssseeee
enemy health bar moves down VERY SLOWLY
paaaussseeeee
effective/not effective message
paaausssseeee
fight menu comes back up
Fuck that.
It put me to sleep by the third or fourth battle in the game because of those pauses.
Yeah it was literally unplayable. I've loved every Pokémon game since RB and couldn't find it in me to go more than 3 or 4 gyms. Complete and utter waste of time.Was diamond/pearl the ones where there were these huge pauses between anything happening in every single battle? If so, that one.
Choose a move to do
paaauuusseeee
your pokemon did a move!
paaaaaussseeee
move animation and sound
paussssseeee
enemy health bar moves down VERY SLOWLY
paaaussseeeee
effective/not effective message
paaausssseeee
fight menu comes back up
Fuck that.
It put me to sleep by the third or fourth battle in the game because of those pauses.
I'd argue it has moments like better distribution of pokemon and honestly, a really great meta (ORAS meta was garbage), but yeah
I'm also more lenient to it because it was a first jump in a full 3D game
EV training, not just for getting EVs but deleting them, getting HAs is much easier, better touchscreen UI (much better than ORAS because the basic touchscreen UI is pretty much the default), "infinite loop" affection raising, easier leveling to 100 that doesn't require you to learn certain friend bases
some stuff in later games that started in XY are trading in boxes for in-game trades, fossil party members, freeform movement, etc.
What kills me here, is that Gen II did almost nothing to fix a lot of this...
You wanted a good Ghost pokemon? Tough shit. Here is Misdreavus... That's all you get.
You wanted a good Dragon pokemon? Tough shit. Here is Kingdra... That's all you get.
Have you construed to mean that I don't have an opinion of my own, and that my opinion is in fact sourced from the opinions of other people? Because I'm not sure why you would have mentioned that to begin with, other than to dismiss away the notion that Red/Blue have issues with their mechanics that most of the other games simply do not, by making it seem as though my opinion has no merit. I posted that image to support my opinion, because it demonstrates that forebearers though they are, Red and Blue are far from perfect. I've felt that way about these games long before I ever saw that image. Hell, I've personally found it hard to return to R/S/E/FL/LG since the DS games, much less previous titles, because of the physical/special split alone.
See, here's where you and others are getting me wrong, I think.
I never said Red and Blue was a bad game. Read what I posted on Mario last page.
I shouldn't have to point out that I never once called Red and Blue bad games. But beyond that, lets make one thing clear...
...you are the one who's trying to reframe the question, and it's clear as day. The OP is there for everyone to read. It asks, "Which mainline Pokemon game would you say was the worst?".
The limiters that you're imposing on this discussion are irrelevant. I was not asked which Pokemon game was the best for its respective era. I was not asked to consider this. That was NOT the question posed by the OP. Mind you, I COULD take that into consideration, but I don't, because I was asked which Pokemon game I see as being the worst, and right now, the two I'd pick are the two that are the most dated and least engaging to me. That's not some damning condemnation of the games. I loved Pokemon Red and Blue and I respect them today. That's just how I see the games relative to their predecessors right now. It's that simple.
You're trying to twist the discussion by framing it in such a way that we HAVE to consider these games lasting legacies, as though they're even a little relevant to what my experience playing those games today would be like. In such a way that invalidates R/B from being choices entirely. Again, convenient.
The question isn't "Which Pokemon mainline entry is the worst in your opinion - factoring in the lasting legacy and impact of Red and Blue, which laid the groundwork for the rest of the series and ushered in an era of Gameboy dominance, and therefore somehow take precedence over the level of actual enjoyment you'd get out of playing those games today" either
you really got a problem with people criticizing R/B/G huh?
Let's look at what OP wrote:
I see nothing about "compared to games in their relative eras", just which is the worst from that list.
And by all means, for most people here, R/B/Y and X/Y are fighting each other for the first place. Is it unfair that R/B/Y have to compare themselves to entries 20 years younger than them? Yes. But then again, there's nothing said about please keep in mind that some games are older than others.
Diamond and Pearl are 10 years old, by your argumentation comparing those to newer entries would be unfair too, since there's up to an entire decade between those, and yet you don't complain about this.
RBY laid the foundation for the series yes, but thats not an argument for it. When someone asks in 2016 what the worst game in the series is, and most answer "the one that released in 1996", you should have a better argument than "but it was a ood game in 1996!". No shit, it was, but that's not what's being asked.
Alright, I gotta step in here on all this RBY hate. RBY still stands up as one of the better Pokemon games, and one of the best GB games ever. This is not nostalgia talking, I replayed Yellow earlier this year on the VC and was constantly impressed by how well it held up. Yes wrap sucks. Yes I hate Zubat. Yes item management is a pain in the ass. Yes Psychic is crazy unbalanced. But Kanto is a very well-realized world with complex areas to explore, real secrets that the game doesn't shine a spotlight on, a diverse amount of Pokemon, excellent pacing, and is by far the LEAST LINEAR Pokemon title even today.
Show me a damn dungeon in BW and beyond anywhere as complex as this. This is a MID GAME DUNGEON.
...
There are over 30 trainers to fight, including your rival and a boss. You had to traverse this massive building while also solving puzzles. You had to sit, think, and backtrack if you wanted to get everything. You got a LAPRAS and a MASTER BALL for clearing this. Now that's a reward.
Other areas like Mt. Moon, Victory Road, Seafoam Islands etc. are also complex in their own way. In Seafoam, you had push blocks down several levels in order to disrupt the flow of water and surf so you can catch a legendary Pokemon. There's no puzzle even a tenth as interesting in Sun/Moon (a game I still like). RBY had real ass RPG dungeons. You got lost, you had to use a bunch of items, and when you got out you let out a desperate sigh and just prayed you could get to the Pokemon Center soon enough. YOU ENTERED ROCK TUNNEL A BOY AND LEFT A MAN.
And back to an aforementioned point: this game is the least linear. When you got the Celadon, you basically had a huge chunk of the map completely open to you. There were multiple ways to get to Fuschia City, and you can do Fuschia or Saffron first. Even if you solely followed the story, you are taken in unexpected directions, like having to go through Vermillion City lower on the map instead of the closest town.
Before someone posts that glitch sheet... ain't no one care about that. Yes the game has a ton of glitches, but unless you seek them, you will never encounter them. The game is not balanced, but it was the first game and I have no idea if Game Freak even considered the series becoming a competitive juggernaut. I mean Knights of the Round in FFVII wasn't balanced. Mewtwo is the Knights of the Round of Pokemon.
Obviously people love RBY and Kanto for nostalgia purposes, but there are some seriously ambitious design decisions in the original game that contributed to it being a success at the time and still enjoyable to this day.
Show me a damn dungeon in BW and beyond anywhere as complex as this. This is a MID GAME DUNGEON.
Alright, I gotta step in here on all this RBY hate. RBY still stands up as one of the better Pokemon games, and one of the best GB games ever. This is not nostalgia talking, I replayed Yellow earlier this year on the VC and was constantly impressed by how well it held up. Yes wrap sucks. Yes I hate Zubat. Yes item management is a pain in the ass. Yes Psychic is crazy unbalanced. But Kanto is a very well-realized world with complex areas to explore, real secrets that the game doesn't shine a spotlight on, a diverse amount of Pokemon, excellent pacing, and is by far the LEAST LINEAR Pokemon title even today.
Show me a damn dungeon in BW and beyond anywhere as complex as this. This is a MID GAME DUNGEON.
There are over 30 trainers to fight, including your rival and a boss. You had to traverse this massive building while also solving puzzles. You had to sit, think, and backtrack if you wanted to get everything. You got a LAPRAS and a MASTER BALL for clearing this. Now that's a reward.
Other areas like Mt. Moon, Victory Road, Seafoam Islands etc. are also complex in their own way. In Seafoam, you had push blocks down several levels in order to disrupt the flow of water and surf so you can catch a legendary Pokemon. There's no puzzle even a tenth as interesting in Sun/Moon (a game I still like). RBY had real ass RPG dungeons. You got lost, you had to use a bunch of items, and when you got out you let out a desperate sigh and just prayed you could get to the Pokemon Center soon enough. YOU ENTERED ROCK TUNNEL A BOY AND LEFT A MAN.
And back to an aforementioned point: this game is the least linear. When you got the Celadon, you basically had a huge chunk of the map completely open to you. There were multiple ways to get to Fuschia City, and you can do Fuschia or Saffron first. Even if you solely followed the story, you are taken in unexpected directions, like having to go through Vermillion City lower on the map instead of the closest town.
Before someone posts that glitch sheet... ain't no one care about that. Yes the game has a ton of glitches, but unless you seek them, you will never encounter them. The game is not balanced, but it was the first game and I have no idea if Game Freak even considered the series becoming a competitive juggernaut. I mean Knights of the Round in FFVII wasn't balanced. Mewtwo is the Knights of the Round of Pokemon.
Obviously people love RBY and Kanto for nostalgia purposes, but there are some seriously ambitious design decisions in the original game that contributed to it being a success at the time and still enjoyable to this day.