Would Generation II be considered the best if it didn't come with 2 regions?

Personally, I think that a game utilizing the feature of the console is as much of a new feature as any other game on that console using the same features.

Yusshin said:

imo, the only thing Gen III added to Pokemon was Natures and Abilities - sure, they're key, but not as key as what Johto offered.

Click to expand...

The abilities introduced a major role in gen III, and so onto gen IV, which leads to HG/SS

and double batteling, cant forget that. And kanto was not the main reason that Gen II was "the best". Like someone said before it was the new features that help build the other generations that made it good.

Gen III also added the current IV and EV system. And the Battle Frontier. And deserts/jungles/beaches/etc. Before Gen III there wasn't that much variable terrain.

But still a 'new features' contest is automatically won by Gen I unless excluded. It added HP, Attack, Defence, Special, Speed, IVs, EVs, moves, levels, experience, Pokemon, evolution, TMs, HMs, battles, trainers, wild Pokemon, etc., etc., etc. Everything in Gen I was a new feature.

I'll just add a different tack here as well, seeing the question is 'would it be considered the best (which is a subjective thing in the first place, although it does seem to be the most popular gen for many people from what I've seen...) if it didn't come with two regions?'

With that in mind, I believe that Johto would have been different if there was no Kanto - expanded upon, and so forth to be bigger to make up for the lack of a following region. That'd mean stuff like a longer game up to the Elite Four and higher levels I presume - to treat Johto by itself as is wouldn't be very fair I feel as I would think it'd have been rather different if there was no Kanto anyways.

It seems to be part of human nature to think that things were better in your day, and then you come up with a bunch of contrived reasons for why that is. And you do this because you desperately want to believe that things were better in your day, and you're not just being nostalgic. But of course, you really are just being nostalgic. The fact that you're coming up with these lists of flaws about Gen 3/Gen 4 Pokemon games pretty much proves that - you want there to be flaws in the newer games so that you can tell yourself that the games which impacted you are the best ones - so you exaggerate the flaws in the newer games whilst ignoring the flaws in the older ones.

You can try and argue that's not the case, but why would you bother if it wasn't?

Jolene said:

It seems to be part of human nature to think that things were better in your day, and then you come up with a bunch of contrived reasons for why that is. And you do this because you desperately want to believe that things were better in your day, and you're not just being nostalgic. But of course, you really are just being nostalgic. The fact that you're coming up with these lists of flaws about Gen 3/Gen 4 Pokemon games pretty much proves that - you want there to be flaws in the newer games so that you can tell yourself that the games which impacted you are the best ones - so you exaggerate the flaws in the newer games whilst ignoring the flaws in the older ones.

You can try and argue that's not the case, but why would you bother if it wasn't?

Click to expand...

Or maybe, g/s/c were actually good games. Just because a game is old does that mean that people can't like it any more for reasons that aren't nostalgic. Can no game from the past be more fun and enjoyable then a game in the present?

Gen I was the best.

End of story.

@Jolene: Not everyone likes G/S/C purely because of nostalgia. I recently did a playthrough of Gold, and it was pretty good. It wasn't because of nostalgia, it was just good. Is it my favorite? No, that still belongs to Platinum, but it is still incredibly good.

Anyway, while nostalgia is a reason a lot of people like G/S/C, don't assume it to be so. I used to, now, unless they are overly obvious about it, then don't assume it to be.

However, while G/S/C are good, it does seem to be incredibly overhyped to an extreme degree. It's good, but it's not this divine game that I hear people describe it as.

Now, to get on topic, would this game be as well liked without Kanto? No. It would still be liked because of the features, but an after game story is indeed a lot of what gamers go on. Generation II had an entire region to explore after beating the game, not to mention a Second Act Final Boss, that is far stronger then any trainer. It had a lot to do after beating the game, and that's part of why it's liked so much, not the whole reason, but part of it.

There are so many things invented by G/S/C that it isn't funny, but really, is it a contest now? The generation that invents the most stuff is the best? First gen doesn't count? It seems like that to me from what I keep hearing, but I'm not here to talk about that.

Breeding
Day/Night
Happiness Evolution
Animated Sprites
Expanded Trade with Other Generations
Money Saving
The Radio
Phone System
Separation of Bags
Shiny Pokemon
Pokerus

These are things that people like from Generation 2 that were introduced there. At least one of these things are adored by people. These are examples of stuff that could in theory attract people to liking it, because they introduced them, likely at the same time as well. Though improvements have been made over time, some of these features that people liked were removed, and the post game content was diminished, sapping away some of the fun.

However, that's my own take on this, it might be wrong, but whatever.

Jolene said:

It seems to be part of human nature to think that things were better in your day, and then you come up with a bunch of contrived reasons for why that is. And you do this because you desperately want to believe that things were better in your day, and you're not just being nostalgic. But of course, you really are just being nostalgic. The fact that you're coming up with these lists of flaws about Gen 3/Gen 4 Pokemon games pretty much proves that - you want there to be flaws in the newer games so that you can tell yourself that the games which impacted you are the best ones - so you exaggerate the flaws in the newer games whilst ignoring the flaws in the older ones.

You can try and argue that's not the case, but why would you bother if it wasn't?

Click to expand...

That's like me saying "oh, I'm sorry, they just invented coke with lime so you can't like regular coke anymore"

If this nostalgia theory of yours was true don't you think everyone would be arguing for red and blue over any other game? But that's not the case now is it? Has it ever crossed your mind that the older games might actually be better? People are putting out plenty of good reasons and you just decided to blatantly ignore them.

Yusshin said:

Why do I like Johto so much?

1) It introduced the most features, other than the original game (breeding, held items, shinies, female character, SP. DEF & DEF, trainer rebattles, apricorns (which gave way to the Berries idea), Dark & Steel types. night & day system, events on certain days... I actually made a list, and it outclassed every other region, especially Sinnoh)
2) It was a continuation of Kanto rather than a completely different region in some distant land
3) The Pokemon didn't suck; after Johto, Nintendo lost all their ideas and started producing garbage Pokemon.
4) The overworld sprites are great in comparison to those of Hoenn and Sinnoh; the Sinnoh male sprite is really unappealing. The female is all right; both overworlds in Hoenn sucked.
5) Hoenn & Sinnoh just seem to be there to make cash off the poor saps who buy them; they're the exact same thing as the original Kanto & Johto pair, and just seems like some copy with a new team name and crappy Pokemon added in to make it "new". Gold/Silver/Crystal was the last creative generation.
6) The legendaries sucked after Johto. Lugia, Ho-oh, Mew, Mewtwo, Moltres, Zapdos, Articuno, Suicune, Raikou, Entei, and Celebi had charm! Since Hoenn & Sinnoh, they've added almost 2.5 the amount of legendaries that Kanto & Johto combined offered. In Hoenn, there were ten legendaries - ten! - ranging from the Regi'brothers to Deoxys. In Sinnoh, there were a grand total of fifteen more "legendaries" introduced. That's 25 legendaries in two series, compared to eleven from Kanto and Johto combined. Legendaries are so common now, that they can't even be called "legendaries" anymore. They're just Uber Pokemon now..

Click to expand...

I agree with #1, but after that you really take it too far.

2) What's wrong with going to a completely new region? I swear the only reason that Johto was linked to Kanto in G/S/C was because Johto is pretty small when compared to Hoenn and Sinnoh. Starting off in a new region with new pokemon is what makes pokemon so fun. Sure it would be awesome to have an continuation such as Gen II did but that could get just a repetitive as well. Do you think Pokemon would have continued going strong if Nintendo kept the 'continuation' in Gens 3 & 4?

3) Nintendo didn't lose their ideas, it's said they made over 1,000 pkmn before even releasing the first. If anything Nintendo is becoming more creative and remember there are over a 1.5 million different species inhabiting this Earth it makes sense for them to try different things to attract new fans. And honestly I don't think the best pokemon designs came in till Gen 3. All the generations have their share of crappy pkmn, but it seems like Nintendo made a trade off w/ G/S/C. Sacrifice new designs of pkmn totally different from the rest for continuation instead..if you get what I mean. You are taking it too far with your sort of ignorant comment that the pkmn after Gen. 2 were crap. I mean come on?

5) Again with the ignorance. Tsk tsk, if Gen 2 was creative then I don't even want to know what you think Gen 1 was. Creativity means producing something new through imaginative skill. The truth is, Gens 3 &4 were produced through imaginative skills, and so were the first two but the previous 2 take it to a new level..while also resembling some real animals at the same time as well like Gen 2 does. So saying that the creativity was lost is just...ludicrous. Hoenn and Sinnoh introduced some new concepts like pokemon contests, mixes of diff. types, new moves (more than the gen 2 if I'm correct), berries, different climates, etc. etc. They weren't carbon copies, and if they were then so be it, they were still great games to play and continue to be my favorite.

6) Rayquaza, Latios, Latias, Groudon, Kyogre, Regirock, Regice, Registeel, Deoxys, jirachi, Palkia, Dialga, Giratina, Uxie, Mesprit, Azelf, Regigigas (admit it's kinda retarded), Heatran, Arceus, Cresselia, Darkrai, Manaphy, and Shaymin all suck? Hoenn and Sinnoh having more legendaries doesn't make them any less legendary than the ones from Kanto and Johto. That's like me saying just because NYC has around 180 skyscrapers already that the new ones that come up more often and faster aren't skyscrapers just b/c there are more of them and they are degrading the definition of skyscraper as each new one is added to the sky.

You seem to be debating far more on the notion of 'Gen 2 is a continuation, has the most creative pkmn, isn't crap,' yada yada. No offense, but your debate just seems too bias for me to take seriously. I acknowledge how awesome Gen 2 was, and yeah it's my 3rd favorite, far ahead of Kanto; however, its awesomeness does not have to come at the expense of the recent generations.

Espeon Master said:

That's like me saying "oh, I'm sorry, they just invented coke with lime so you can't like regular coke anymore"

If this nostalgia theory of yours was true don't you think everyone would be arguing for red and blue over any other game? But that's not the case now is it? Has it ever crossed your mind that the older games might actually be better? People are putting out plenty of good reasons and you just decided to blatantly ignore them.

Click to expand...

The older games being better is just a matter of opinion, and frankly I'm tired of reading how so many people who take the initiative to point out all the flaws in Gen 3 &4 while saying Gen 2 is the best. That makes an opinion turn to ignorance. I could care less if people though Johto and Kanto were better, but when they put these two regions on a pedestal while stomping on the other two that just takes it further than it needs to go.

Generation 1 is the best no matter what