Your controversial opinions

[There Is No Arceus]

A weird pattern I noticed regarding regions

• Regions of generations that make great changes to the gameplay are set in Latin Europe. Kalos was 3D, and Paldea is an Open World
• Regions that belong to generations that end an era display subtle slavic influence. In Unova, Hydregion is literally a Zmey, Kyurem's reawakening riffs from the Tunguska event, Cheren's name is Bulgarian for black, Bianca's Japanese name is Russian for white. In Alola, Tsareena's name is literally just Tsarina distorted.

Therefore, if the hot-cold pattern holds, Gen X/2026/30th anniversary region could possibly be in central or eastern Europe. Candidates include Germany, austria and the west slavic lands (popularity of pokemon in those areas and Japanese tourism) or Romania and Croatia (tourism only).

Unova was intended to be the beginning of an era though, not the end of one. It was intended to more or less be a soft reboot of the series, hence why the original Unova dex included no familiar faces. This isn't how it turned out, but it was the intention. Also, you are ignoring the vast changes the Hoenn games made to the franchise despite not being set in latin europe.

 

[Ransei]

Unova was intended to be the beginning of an era though, not the end of one. It was intended to more or less be a soft reboot of the series, hence why the original Unova dex included no familiar faces. This isn't how it turned out, but it was the intention. Also, you are ignoring the vast changes the Hoenn games made to the franchise despite not being set in latin europe.

It wasn't a hard reboot like X and Y. Additionally, B2W2 pieced the first 5 gens together by the PWT and there were many old characters in the Unova games.

 

[Sheep40]

Hoenn was very much the result of early installment weirdness. It was a transitional period between early and modern canons. I predict Gen X/2026/30th anniversary would be similar but much less drastic.

 

[Herbizarre]

The HGSS remakes would have been much better if the Sevii Islands were available to visit in those games. Meeting again with Lorelei on Isle 4, possibly going back to the old Team Rocket hideout in Isle 5, and visiting the Tanobi Ruins to go alongside the Ruins of Alpha would have been a neat idea.

 

[Mr. MoonStone]

Building from the last comment: The Sevii Islands were weak in execution.

 

[There Is No Arceus]

while i would not have objected to visiting the sevii isles, one must not forget that their primary purpose was reintroducing gen 2 pokemon. this was necessary in gen 3 where you couldn't get them otherwise, but in the johto remakes an area designated to bringing back gen 2 mons was... less of a necessity.

 

[Poke Dragon]

Locking some Pokemon in the postgame area is useless.

This is mainly the Gen 2 game's problem where some Gen 2 Pokemon could only be found in the Kanto portion of the game. So what was the point of that really? Oh right, because it's oh so important to make a dex impossible to complete without going into post-game areas (sarcasm btw).

There's an easy way to fix this while still giving the post-game area a purpose: Make the Pokemon that's rarer in earlier areas much more common in the post-game areas.

 

[Norzan]

I think Scarlet and Violet are great Pokémon games. The technical issues exist, yes, but they do not dampen my enjoyment of the games, and they're also being fixed. The characters are enjoyable, the story is good and handles some pretty dark themes for a Pokémon game, the new gimmick is shared more equally amongst every available Pokémon than any previous gimmick (only select few Pokémon could Mega Evolve or Gigantamax, and some Pokémon had signature Z-Moves as opposed to just the regular ones), and the Pokémon designs are very solid across the board.

How is this controversial? I assume it isn't because a lot of people here think that a game selling well means the majority likes it and the game sold extremely well. So by this logic, saying the game is actually bad is the controversial take.

You did the same thing with Sword and Shield.

 

[FinnishPokéFan92]

How is this controversial? I assume it isn't because a lot of people here think that a game selling well means the majority likes it and the game sold extremely well. So by this logic, saying the game is actually bad is the controversial take.

You did the same thing with Sword and Shield.

I've actually seen many YouTube comments and such hating these games due to the technical issues while ignoring the great story.

 

[Rockapheller]

while i would not have objected to visiting the sevii isles, one must not forget that their primary purpose was reintroducing gen 2 pokemon. this was necessary in gen 3 where you couldn't get them otherwise, but in the johto remakes an area designated to bringing back gen 2 mons was... less of a necessity.

Funnily enough, game producers barely bothered introducing Johto Pokémon in... Johto, and for some odd reason decided to keep a good amount of them in Kanto only. I am to this day still sad that I could have never caught a Houndour in a proper Johto play-through. So it would not bother the producers to give us some Sevi areas regardless of why they were introduced in Gen III.

 

[Norzan]

I've actually seen many YouTube comments

Which don't represent the majority of players. So yes, saying Scarlet and Violet are good is not controversial, the exact opposite.

 

[Ransei]

The consistent string of negative reviews of Scarlet and Violet shown on Metacritic and Google is a reflection of how people view the games, alongside articles about how many demanded refunds for it and Nintendo was giving it to them. Situations Pokémon games before Sword and Shield never fell into. I think saying Scarlet and Violet are good is very controversial. Scarlet and Violet are across the board the most negatively received mainline game to date by official critics and fans alike.

 

[prog rocker]

Funnily enough, game producers barely bothered introducing Johto Pokémon in... Johto, and for some odd reason decided to keep a good amount of them in Kanto only. I am to this day still sad that I could have never caught a Houndour in a proper Johto play-through. So it would not bother the producers to give us some Sevi areas regardless of why they were introduced in Gen III.

This is why I don't know how people would have reacted if we got Johto as originally planned. On one hand, Johto would have been bigger and Kanto would only be a town. On the other hand, there would be more Kanto pre-evos and evolutions and the problems with distribution would only be slightly better (as in, there wouldn't be Kanto/Mt. Silver exclusives but Kanto would still be the one with focus).

 

[Norzan]

The consistent string of negative reviews of Scarlet and Violet shown on Metacritic and Google is a reflection of how people view the games

Around 3k reviews on metacritic from users and probably just as much from Google, so a pittance compared to the amount of copies sold.

Sword and Shield is sitting at 4,7 user score on Metacritic, so not like that went unscathed from metacritic review bombing.

alongside articles about how many demanded refunds for it and Nintendo was giving it to them.

How many actually refunded the game? We don't know, but i doubt it was enough to make a difference.

This forum can't preach that amount of sales equates to people liking it and thus the majority thinks it's a good game, but turn around and claim a game that sold extremely well is good somehow means a controversial opinion. You can't have both ways.

 

[WinterArcanine]

Shiny Dragonite is a great shiny.

 

[Norzan]

As many issues i have with Scarlet and Violet, i actually commend Gamefreak for not using Bethesda style level scaling because i personally despise scaling in open world games. I hate everything scaling to me because it makes the world feel incredibly artificial and fake due to the fact that enemies will just scale to my level, thus making progress kind of a moot point. Why get stronger if everything is gonna be at the same difficulty regardless of how strong i get?

It also kills the possiblity of low level challenge runs, i can no longer go to a lategame area and try to complete it to maybe get strong items much earlier than normal because the enemies will just be at my level.

 

[Gengarzilla]

As many issues i have with Scarlet and Violet, i actually commend Gamefreak for not using Bethesda style level scaling because i personally despise scaling in open world games. I hate everything scaling to me because it makes the world feel incredibly artificial and fake due to the fact that enemies will just scale to my level, thus making progress kind of a moot point. Why get stronger if everything is gonna be at the same difficulty regardless of how strong i get?

It also kills the possiblity of low level challenge runs, i can no longer go to a lategame area and try to complete it to maybe get strong items much earlier than normal because the enemies will just be at my level.

I do understand why that would bother someone, but at the same time, I feel that to not have level scaling seriously undermines the "open world experience" that was supposed to be Scarlet and Violet's big selling point as mainline Pokémon games.
Why get stronger if everything is gonna be at the same difficulty regardless of how strong you get? That's completely fair and I'm not out to make you feel wrong for it, but I have a response question: Why go anywhere you please if going off the unspoken correct path leaves you ambushed by an abrupt difficulty jump?
The only time I ended up taking full advantage of the open world was my immediate beeline to Levincia's Delibird Presents shop so I could have a Loaded Dice on my Bullet Seed Skiploom before the first gym. Otherwise, the lack of level scaling made Pokémon's on paper big open world adventure feel no less railroaded than previous Pokémon games in practice.

The best case scenario, if you ask me, would be if the level scaling was an optional setting we can turn on or off at will. That way both of us can be satisfied. I'm glad you're happy to have ducked one extreme end but I'm a believer of the "seesaw" and I think they went too far down the other extreme end instead. I simply don't buy that the polar opposite of a bad thing is automatically a good thing by default.

 

[There Is No Arceus]

The best case scenario, if you ask me, would be if the level scaling was an optional setting we can turn on or off at will. That way both of us can be satisfied. I'm glad you're happy to have ducked one extreme end but I'm a believer of the "seesaw" and I think they went too far down the other extreme end instead. I simply don't buy that the polar opposite of a bad thing is automatically a good thing by default.

unfortunately GF does not like options. they forced the exp share on us from gen 8 on, and they took away battle styles. the only options we have left are semantic stuff like text speed; everything that matters is gone.

 

[Norzan]

unfortunately GF does not like options. they forced the exp share on us from gen 8 on, and they took away battle styles. the only options we have left are semantic stuff like text speed; everything that matters is gone.

Yeah, if Gamefreak can't give us basic difficulties that have been a thing since the early 80s and are pretty much the norm in all games for at least two decades now, they sure as hell ain't giving people the ability to turn on and off level scaling.

 

[Sheep40]

The next games should ditch the open world and be immersive sim dungeon crawls.