Pokemon Fans Discuss What It Would Take To Make The Games "Objectively Bad"

thegamer.com:

The Pokemon series is adored by many players around the world. Ever since Red and Blue asked us to pick between squirtle, bulbasaur, and charmander on the Game Boy in 1996 the pocket monsters have drawn countless fans. But with around 20 or so entries in the mainline series, and with some previous titles sparking heated debate, fans are beginning to ask questions and to consider what it would take to make them reconsider their commitment.

One fan posed it succinctly: 'What would it take for a Pokemon game to be objectively bad?' They then proceeded to reel off a list of titles that have tanked the reputations of video games series. "Sonic 2006. Modern Madden. Fallout 76. Mighty No. 9. Mass Effect: Andromeda. Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite", they wrote.

Related: Pokemon Go Needs More Balls

"Names that strike fear in the hearts of gaming developers. No one wants a game to end up like disasters", they continued, before summarising their question: "What would it take for a Pokemon game to be objectively bad? Something so bad that it's a byword for failure and it's barely playable or enjoyable. And would its complete collapse force Gamefreak/The Pokémon Company to change?"

Of course "objectively bad" could be a loaded term in itself. For instance, there was a huge debate sparked by Pokemon Legends: Arceus over its graphics. On the one side many thought Game Freak could've done more instead of having the visuals appear so janky while on the other side many defended the developer on the grounds that graphics don't matter (to simplify the whole affair).

But Arceus' sub-par visuals didn't seem to dent its sales and as we move into Gen 9 with Pokemon Scarlet & Violet due to launch later this year, the question posed above has