Talk:Generation III: Criticized too often?
By far the biggest source of bitterness I felt at both R/S/E and D/P/Pt was the inability to revisit the areas from the previous games. They've built up a fairly sizable world by now and it's a damn shame to keep it only accessible in remakes. G/S/C was the only time they got this right, and that's the reason I hold it in such high regard. --Toksyuryel 11:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I really think it depends on which online communities you belong to. In my experience, it seems that many current fans consider the third generation the best, if not second-best to the fourth. It's the second generation that seems to get the most hate from what I've personally seen, for reasons you mentioned such as feeling "cramped" or having a comparatively simplistic plot, or lack of environmental variation (none of which I personally find fault in, but that's my opinion of course). I find it safe to say the majority of pokémon players these days were introduced to the franchise via 3rd gen, and as such, hold it in high regard. Of course, these are just my personal observations ;) RHetoRic 12:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
The reason I hate playing Ruby is the surfing. It seems that half the overworld is comprised of water routes. And they simply aren't fun because it limits the kind of Pokemon that I use for a massive section of the game. Tercotta 12:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree that one of my biggest gripes with R/S/E was the abundance of water routes - as a primary user of fire Pokemon, it posed a bit of an issue. However, it does make sense in the context of the games. As the two villainous teams are trying to either increase the size of the land or the size of the seas, having the region be closer to 50/50 land v water makes some sense. That's one of the things I liked about R/S/E. The story, despite still being week, felt a great deal stronger than that of G/S/C. The fact that the villanous teams attempted to do something other than steal Pokemon strengthened the story and made them seem much more of a treat than Team Rocket ever was.--Cynda09 15:44, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Ruby was the first game I ever bought. As an eleven year-old, I instantly became engrossed, so, although my opinion on the merits of Generation III may be less valid because of a lack of yardstick (at that time at least), those games must have had some good qualities or I wouldn't have played them as much as I did! And as for the huge amount of surfing and large proportion of water Pokémon, my opinion is that Hoenn is a watery region, just as Sinnoh is dominated by Mt Coronet, and I think this dynamic works well. Plus I really like water Pokémon. -- Zizzimay 18:09, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
I don't think it's criticized too much. It may have been a revolution, but it was a harsh one. The lack of connectivity with the earlier generations was crippling. In the first two games, all you needed was a friend to trade you a couple extras and you could complete the Pokedex. Then in generation two you needed four, which was tolerable as long as you and your friend still had your first games, but completing the 'dex was getting a lot harder. When Ruby and Sapphire came around with their lack of connectivity to the other games, it was actually impossible. When this news came out I didn't even bother buying the games and in fact dropped out of the community until Platinum. Battle enhancements alone don't make a Pokemon game - it's a game about trading, and trading died in generation III. I'd love to see a remake of Hoenn that addresses all of this, but until that happens, it's pretty justified not liking the games. Saiar 18:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)